# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 20-40682 Summary Calendar

Rosemarie Pena,

Plaintiff—Appellant ,

versus

Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant—Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:19-CV-235

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: *
Claimant Rosemarie Pena appeals th e district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s Memorand um and Recommendation, denying Claimant’s motion for summary judg ment, affirming the Commissioner of

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 6, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40682 Document: 00515852372 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2021No. 20-40682

2 Social Security’s determination, and dismissing Claimant’s case. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM

. Claimant alleged disability on August 12, 2016 due to a benign brain tumor, scoliosis, diabetes, arthritis in her hips, legs, and lower back, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and be ing hard of hearing in her right ear. Claimant’s application was denied upon initial consideratio n and again upon reconsideration. At Claimant’s requ est, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), wh o concluded that Claimant was not disabled from August 12, 2016 throug h the date of the decision, August 10, 2018. Claimant’s request that the Appe als Council review this decision was denied, thereby making the August 10, 2018 decision final under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Claimant timely filed suit on August 16, 2019, seeking a review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). After a thorough review of the evid ence, the magistrate judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation, reco mmending to the district court
that the Commissioner’s determination be affirmed, and Clai mant’s cause of action be dismissed. On September 18 , 2020, the district court issued an order adopting the Memorandum and Recommendation in its entirety, and Claimant timely appealed.
On appeal, Claimant asserts a ra nge of due process and procedural errors but cites to no authority and provides no evidence to support her allegations. For the reasons thoroughly detailed by the magistrate judge, we conclude that Claimant’s proc edural claims are meritless.

“We review the denial of benefits only to ascertain whether
substantial evidence su pports the final decision and whether the Commissioner used the proper legal stan dards to evaluate the evidence. We affirm the Commissioner’s findings whenever supported by substantial Case: 20-40682 Document: 00515852372 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2021No. 20-40682

3 evidence.” 1 “Substantial evidence is ‘such re levant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” 2 The crux of this case, therefore, is whether substa ntial evidence su pports the ALJ’s
determination that Claimant was not di sabled during the relevant timeframe.
State medical expert Dr. McCary opin ed that Claimant was capable of light work with standing and/or walking for up to four hours, sitting for about six hours in an eight-hour workday, c limbing ramps and stairs but not ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, frequent bala ncing, kneeling, and crawling, and occasional stopping and crouching. Moreover, state medical expert Dr. Spoor opined that Claimant was capa ble of work with standing and/or walking for up to six hours, sitting for about six hours in an eight-hour workday, frequently climbing raps and stairs but only occasionally climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, frequent balancing, kneeling, crouching, and crawling, and occasional stooping. The ALJ gave more weight to Dr. McCary’s opinion than Dr. Spoor’s and ultimately concluded that although Claimant has some impairments that lim it her to a reduced range of light work, treatment notes in the record from her physicians and diagnostic test results did not support Claimant’s a llegations of disabling conditions.
Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determinatio n that Claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from August 12, 2016 through August 10, 2018. For those re asons and the ones stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough Memorandum and Recommendation, we
AFFIRM

.

1 Masterson v. Barnhart , 309 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

2 Greenspan v. Shalala , 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Richardson v.
Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). Case: 20-40682 Document: 00515852372 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/06/2021