* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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.
1 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 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

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

### FEB 9 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
NITA J. SEGRAVES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-6157 (D.C. No. 96-CV-2102) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Nita J. Segraves appeals the di strict court’s judgment affirming the final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff’s application for supplemental security income benefits. 1 Because the-2-

Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantialevidence and no legal errors occurred, we affirm. The application for benefits filed in February 1994 , alleges an inability to work after April 5, 1991, due to back and hip pain and low mental functioning. On consideration of the application, an administrat ive law judge (ALJ) determined that plaintiff could perform her former work and thus was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, makin g the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. The district c ourt affirmed. Plaintiff argues to us that the Commissioner’s deci sion is legally infirm and is not supported by substantial evidence. She insi sts that she cannot perform her past relevant work because she has never been capab le of performing substantial gainful employment; that the ALJ erred in finding p laintiff physically and mentally capable of performing her past work; and that the Medical-Vocational Guidelines require a finding that plaintiff is disabled. We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether corre ct legal standards were applied. See Hawkins v. Chater , 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Soliz v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)-3-

(further quotation omitted)). We may neither rewei gh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991). We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the parties. Applying the standards s et out above, we affirm the denial of supplemental security income benefits forsubstantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s November 7, 1997 r eport and recommendation, as adopted by the district court’s February 5, 1998 or der. The judgment of the United States District Court is AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge