### 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-30-2002 

# W alt e rs v . C omm S o c i al S ec ur it y

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 1-2750

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" W alt e r s v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 65. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/65NO T 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 PENNSYLVAN IA

(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-02603) District Judge: The Honorable Mary A. McLa ughlin

___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1( a) January 23, 2002

BEFORE: NYGAARD and STAPLETON, Circuit Ju dges, and CAPUTO, District Judge.

(Filed January 30, 2002)

___________

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Appellant, Michael E. Walters, appeal s from an order of the District Court which granted summary judgment in favor of th e 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 appel lant 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 t he appellant a full and fair hearing on his claim. 3. Whether the District Court applie d an incorrect standard of review, conducting a de novo review of the evidenc e, substituting its judgment for that of the Administrative Law Judge.

II. The facts and procedural history of this c ase are well known to the parties and the court. We see no reason to restate them he re. Moreover, under the usual circumstances when we affirm by Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, we "briefly set[-] forth the reasons supporting the court's dec ision...." 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 e ducate and inform the attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. We use a Mem orandum 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 memor andum 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 Dist rict Court, adequately explains and fully supports the magistrate judge's recommendatio n and the District Court's order. Hence, we believe it unnecessary to offer explanati ons and reasons, in addition to those given by the magistrate judge and District Court, w hy 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 recommend ation 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 w hether the District

Court applied the correct standard of review, we likewise see no erro r. The record indicates that the District Court examined the entire record it had on review a nd determined that the ALJ had properly evaluated all the evidence, including appe llant'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 con clusion 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. Nygaa rd Circuit Judge