### *The HONORABLE JAMES M. BURNS, United States District Judge

for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, District Judge for the 1 

### Eastern District of Missouri. The Honorable Joseph M. Touhill, United States 2 

### Administrative Law Judge for the Department of Health & Human Services, Social Security Administration. No. 95-3740EM

John Scott, * * Appellant, * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Shirley S. Chater, * District of Missouri. Commissioner of Social * Security, * * Appellee. *

Submitted: April 10, 1996 Filed: April 28, 1997

Before MC MILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, BURNS,* District Judge.

BURNS, District Judge.

John Scott appeals the district court's Order issued September 26, 1 1995, in which the court upheld the Administrative Law Judge's ( ALJ) final 2 decision denying Scott's application for benefits under the Social Securit y Act.

In April 1992, Scott applied for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq . In May 1992,

### The Honorable Lawrence O. Davis, United States Magistrate 3 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
2 Scott also applied for disability insurance benefits pursuant to 42 U .S.C. §§ 401, et seq . The Social Security Administration denie d Scott's application initially and upon reconsideration. Scott appealed an d was granted a hearing before an ALJ.

On January 18, 1996, the ALJ issued a final decision in which h e found Scott was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and, therefore, was not entitled to Social Security benefits. Afte r evaluating the entire record, including additional medical evidenc e submitted by Scott, the Appeals Council declined review; thus, the ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision. See Jones v. Chater , 86 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1996). Scott then sought judicial review i n district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).

Scott' s appeal was assigned to a magistrate judge pursuant to 2 8 3 U.S.C. § 636(b). Aft er a review of the record as a whole, the magistrate judge issued a carefully reasoned 16-page Report and Recommendation o n August 30, 1995. The magistrate judge concluded substantial evidenc e existed to support the ALJ's decision that Scott was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and, ther efore, was not entitled to Social Security benefits. Scott appealed to the district court.

After the district court independently reviewed the record an d evaluat ed the evidence, the district court also concluded substantia l evide nce existed to support the ALJ's final decision to deny Scott th e social security benefits he sought. On September 26, 1996, the district court issued a four-page Order in which it adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, summarized it s reasons for doing so, and added its own analysis . The district court also entered a judgment affirming the

### 3

Commis sioner's final decision. Scott now appeals the district court' s decision and takes his seventh bite of the apple, so to speak.

Judicial review by both the district court and the appellate cour t is "limited to determ ining whether there is substantial evidence based on the entire record to support the ALJ's factual findings" and whether the ALJ's decision "was based on legal error." Clark v. Chater , 75 F.3d at 41 6 (citing Keller v. Shalala , 26 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 1994)). See als o Carlock v. Sullivan , 902 F.2d 1341, 1343 (8th Ci r. 1990) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 4 05(g) and Bolton v. Bowen , 814 F.2d 536, 537 (8th Cir. 1987))

. Substa ntial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable min d might acc ept as adequate to support a conclusion." Clark v. Chater , 7 5 F.3d at 416 (citing R eed v. Sullivan , 988 F.2d 812, 814 (8th Cir. 1993)). If we find "it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from th e evidence and one of those positions represents the agency's findings, we must affirm the [agency's] decision." Robinson v. Sullivan , 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1992) ( citing Cruse v. Bowen , 867 F.2d 1183, 1184 (8th Cir. 1989)). The focus of our review is "not so much on the district court's ruling as it is on th e administrative ruling." Turpin v. Bowen , 813 F.2d 165, 170 (8th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).

After carefully reviewing and evalua ting the record on the whole, we hold substantial evid ence existed to support the ALJ's final decision and the district court's judgment that Scott was not disabled within th e meani ng of the Social Security Act and, therefore, was not entitled t o Social Security benefits. We also hold the ALJ's final decision was not based on legal error. We see no need to repeat at length the thoroughly well-r easoned findings and rulings set forth in the Report an d Recommendation of the magistrate judge and in the Order of the distric t court; therefore, we hereby adopt and incorporate same in support of our holding. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

### 4 A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.