*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 MCMILLIAN 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 Security

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 denied

Scott's application initially and upon reconsideration. Scott appealed and

was granted a hearing before an ALJ. 

On January 18, 1996, the ALJ issued a final decision in which he

found Scott was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act

and, therefore, was not entitled to Social Security benefits. After

evaluating the entire record, including additional medical evidence

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 in

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 28

3

U.S.C. § 636(b). After a review of the record as a whole, the magistrate

judge issued a carefully reasoned 16-page Report and Recommendation on

August 30, 1995. The magistrate judge concluded substantial evidence

existed to support the ALJ's decision that Scott was not disabled within

the meaning of the Social Security Act and, therefore, was not entitled to

Social Security benefits. Scott appealed to the district court. 

After the district court independently reviewed the record and

evaluated the evidence, the district court also concluded substantial

evidence existed to support the ALJ's final decision to deny Scott the

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 its

reasons for doing so, and added its own analysis. The district court also

entered a judgment affirming the 
3

Commissioner'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 court

is "limited to determining 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 416

(citing Keller v. Shalala, 26 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 1994)). See also

Carlock v. Sullivan, 902 F.2d 1341, 1343 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g) and Bolton v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 536, 537 (8th Cir. 1987)).

Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Clark v. Chater, 75

F.3d at 416 (citing Reed v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 812, 814 (8th Cir. 1993)).

If we find "it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the

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 the administrative ruling." Turpin v. Bowen, 813 F.2d

165, 170 (8th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). 

After carefully reviewing and evaluating the record on the whole, we

hold substantial evidence existed to support the ALJ's final decision and

the district court's judgment that Scott was not disabled within the

meaning of the Social Security Act and, therefore, was not entitled to

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-reasoned findings and rulings set forth in the Report and

Recommendation of the magistrate judge and in the Order of the district

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.