* Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secr etary of Health and

Human Services in social security cases were transf erred to the Commissioner of Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Pursuant to Fe d. R. App. P. 43(c), Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted for Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the defe ndant in this action. Although we have substituted the Commissioner for the Secretary in the caption, in the text we continue to refer to the Secretary b ecause she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying decision.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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

*** Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge, Un ited States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designat ion.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 7/26/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID MARCHANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-2256 (D.C. No. CIV-94-838-JP) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before PORFILIO, BRIGHT, *** and KELLY, Circuit Judges.-2-

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) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff David Marchant is a 36-year-old man with a high school education who has previously worked as a construction laborerand foreman and as a floor sweeper. He applied for social security disability benefits on August 31, 1992, alleging a disability since July 8, 1992 due only t o a back injury. After his application was denied at the administrative level, plaintiff requested and received a de novo review and hearing before and ad ministrative law judge (ALJ) on December 13, 1993. The ALJ found plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, and that decisi on became the final decision of the Secretary when the Appeals Council denied plain tiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision. Plaintiff then appealed his denial of benefits to t he United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Before the d istrict court, plaintiff raised a new claim that he had a disabling mental impairmentresulting from drug addictions. The district court adopted the recomme ndation of a magistrate judge1 Plaintiff’s medical record consisted of his New Mex ico Penitentiary

medical record, 5/19/89 to 9/26/92; his University of New Mexico Hospital record, 7/17/92 to 8/25/92; and his Central New Mex ico Correction Facilities medical record, 1/2/91 to 4/5/92.

2 A “sedentary” job is defined as one involving sitti ng and also a certain degree of walking and standing. A job is sedentaryif walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met. Work performed at the (continued...) -3- in affirming the defendant’s decision and rejecting his new claim of a disabling mental impairment. We affirm. We review the Secretary’s final decision to determi ne whether the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in t he record viewed as a whole and whether the correct legal standards were applie d. Glenn v. Shalala , 21 F.3d 983, 984 (10th Cir. 1994). The magistrate judge found that the medical record 1 establishes that plaintiff appears to have a severe impairment consi sting of degenerative lumbar disc disease. Plaintiff testified that he can stan d for up to 10-15 minutes at a time, and that one doctor told him to perform no li fting over 25 pounds and to perform no bending. Plaintiff’s impairment, howeve r, fails meet any of the disability listing criteria set forth in social sec urity regulations. Although it appears plaintiff is unable to return to any of his past relevant work, he failed to establish that his pain is of sufficient severity t o preclude a full range of sedentary work. 2 Plaintiff uses no pain medication and he has not received any2 (...continued)

sedentary level of exertion would require no more t han two hours of standing or walking in an eight-hour work day.

3 For example, plaintiff testified that he helps his mother clean the house, he goes grocery shopping, he feeds the dog, and makes appointments.

4 Social Security Ruling 82-60 provides that an alcoh olic or drug addict is not disabled if the evidence fails to show inability to engage in substantial gainful activity.

-4- treatment for his back condition since 1992. Based on plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ noted that plaintiff has a fairly active lifestyle 3 which is consistent with an ability to perform at least a full range of sedenta ry work. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff is no t disabled as defined under the Social Security Act. Plaintiff also asserts that the ALJ failed to adequ ately explore the possibility that he has a disabling mental impairme nt resulting from drug addictions. 4 The record shows, however, that the ALJ developedthe record and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determinat ion that plaintiff has no severe mental impairment due to drug addiction. Pl aintiff did not indicate to the ALJ that he was unable to work due to drug use. H is testimony revealed that he has had drug abuse treatment and he has reduced his substance abuse. Except for attending an anger management control program, plai ntiff was not undergoing any-5-

psychiatric or mental health outreach treatment or psychiatric hospitalizations. The ALJ stated that plaintiff got along well with h is mother and fiancee with whom he lived, and that plaintiff related openly an d cooperatively during his disability hearing. The record supports the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff’s alleged antisocial personality disorder with depend ency needs failed to constitute a disabling impairment. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Myron H. Bright Senior Circuit Judge