2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-30-2002

Walters v. Comm Social Security

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 1-2750

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Walters v. Comm Social Security" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 65.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/65
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 01-2750 

 ___________ 

 MICHAEL E. WALTERS, 

 Appellant, 

 v. 

 JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

 ___________ 

 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 (D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-02603) 

 District Judge: The Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin 

 ___________ 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 January 23, 2002 

 BEFORE: NYGAARD and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, 

 and CAPUTO, District Judge. 

 (Filed January 30, 2002) 

 ___________ 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT 

 ___________ 

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. 

 Appellant, Michael E. Walters, appeals from an order of the 

District 

Court which granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

alleging as error the issues listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from 

appellant's brief. 

Because we conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm. 
 I. 

 The allegations of error asserted by appellant are as follows: 

 1. Whether the Commissioner's final decision denying 

appellant's claim for 

 Disability Insurance Benefits is supported by substantial 

evidence. 

 2. Whether the Commissioner denied the appellant a full and 

fair hearing on 

 his claim. 

 3. Whether the District Court applied an incorrect standard 

of review, 

 conducting a de novo review of the evidence, substituting its 

judgment for 

 that of the Administrative Law Judge. 

 II. 

 The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to 

the parties 

and the court. We see no reason to restate them here. Moreover, under 

the usual 

circumstances when we affirm by Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, we 

"briefly 

set[-] forth the reasons supporting the court's decision...." United 

States Court of Appeals 

for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.4. The 

reasons for writing 

an opinion are to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the 

attorneys and 

parties, and to explain our decision. We use a Memorandum Opinion in 

cases, such as 

this one, in which a published opinion is rendered unnecessary because the 

opinion has no 

institutional or precedential value. See I.O.P. 5.2. In this case, 

with respect to Issues 

One and Two, we have concluded that neither a memorandum explanation of 

reasons, nor 

a published opinion is indicated because the Report and Recommendation 

prepared by the 

magistrate judge, and which was adopted by the District Court, adequately 

explains and 

fully supports the magistrate judge's recommendation and the District 

Court's order. 

Hence, we believe it unnecessary to offer explanations and reasons, in 

addition to those 

given by the magistrate judge and District Court, why we will affirm. It 

is a sufficient 

explanation for all involved in this litigation to say that, essentially 

for the reasons given 

by the magistrate judge in its report and recommendation and adopted by 

the District 

Court in its order dated the 13th day of June, 2001, we will affirm as to 

Issues One and 

Two. 
 With respect to the third issue, that is whether the District 

Court applied the 

correct standard of review, we likewise see no error. The record 

indicates that the District 

Court examined the entire record it had on review and determined that the 

ALJ had 

properly evaluated all the evidence, including appellant's position's on 

the meaning of 

"light work" and all the evidence pertaining to his limitation. It is 

apparent that the 

District Court was merely reiterating the ALJ's conclusion was supported 

by substantial 

evidence. This was not de novo fact finding or re-weighing of evidence as 

appellant 

argues. We will affirm as to this issue as well. 

 III. 

 In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of 

the District 

Court dated the 13th day of June, 2001. 

 

_________________________ 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing opinion. 

 /s/ Richard L. Nygaard 

 Circuit Judge