* Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Kenneth S. Ap fel is substituted for

John J. Callahan, former Acting Commissioner of Soc ial Security, as the defendant in this action.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 27 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAMON N. DUNBAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-6132 (D.C. No. 96-CV-1380) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before BRORBY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral-2-

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Claimant Damon N. Dunbar appeals from the district court’s order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Socia l Security denying his applications for disability and supplemental securi ty income benefits. Agency regulations establish a five-step sequential analys is to evaluate disability claims. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (describingfive steps in detail). Here, the administrative law jud ge (ALJ) reached step five of the analysis, determining that, although claimant couldnot return to his past relevant work, he could perform other work available in the national economy. Claimant filed suit in district court and the court, adopting the magistr ate judge’s findings and recommendation, affirmed the a gency’s denial of benefits. Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises under 28 U .S.C. § 1291. Our review of the agency’s decision is limited to determining whe ther the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole an d whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). On appeal, claimant contends that the ALJ failed to 1) properly consider evidence of claimant’s alleged mental impairments, 2) develop the record with regard to those alleged mental impairments, and 3) properly include the alleged-3-

mental impairments in the hypothetical question pos ed to the vocational expert at claimant’s disability hearing. After careful review of the record on appeal and co nsideration of claimant’s arguments in light of the applicable leg al standards, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s decisionand that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. Further, the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set f orth in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, dated November 4, 1997 , the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge