UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT BOYCE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-1787

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

David L. Core, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-94-89-1)

Submitted: March 31, 1997

Decided: June 12, 1997

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Susan K. McLaughlin, MCLAUGHLIN & CURRY, Fairmont, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Charlotte Hardnett, Chief Counsel,

Region III, James A. Winn, Supervisory Assistant Regional Counsel,

Thomas S. Inman, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General

Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania; William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Helen

Campbell Altmyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West

Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Boyce filed a claim with the Social Security Administration

in June 1992 for Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability

commencing December 29, 1991, as a result of a fracture of his left

leg. After denial and reconsideration, Boyce requested a hearing

before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ decided that

Boyce was not disabled under the Social Security Act because Boyce,

while unable to perform any past relevant work, retained the functional capacity for "work involving simple routine tasks of light exertion." The Appeals Council denied Boyce's request for review. The

ALJ's decision then became the Commissioner's final decision.

Boyce filed a complaint in the district court challenging the final

decision of the Commissioner. The parties consented to a disposition

by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). The

magistrate judge entered a final order affirming the decision of the

Commissioner. This appeal followed.

We review the Commissioner's final decision to determine whether

it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law

was applied. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp. 1996); Hays v.

Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Boyce claims that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's finding of Boyce's educational level as "limited or less" but not"illiterate." However, the

ALJ gave specific reasons for his determination and we will not disturb it. See Hammond v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir. 1985).

The ALJ made a thorough evaluation of the evidence, and we conclude that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial

evidence and was based on the correct legal standards. The ALJ properly placed Boyce's level of education and literacy in the limited or

less but not illiterate category. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b)(2)-(3)

(1995).

 2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3