* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5 TH C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-50307

Summary Calendar

____________________

JILL A. NIERA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. SA-96-CV-422)

January 16, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jill Niera appeals the district court’s affirmance of the

Social Security Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security benefits.

Niera applied for such benefits on the basis that she became

disabled following an injury sustained in an accident. The

application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. She

r equested, and received, a hearing before an Administrative Law- 2 -

Judge, who determined that she was not disabled. Review of that

decision was refused by the Appeals Council.

Niera then filed this action in district court. The case was

refer red to a magistrate judge, who recommended that the

Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Subsequently, the district

court overruled o bjections filed by Niera to the recommendation.

Adopting the ma gistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, it

affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

Niera contends that (1) the ALJ did not use correct legal

standards in evaluating the evidence; (2) the ALJ’s decision is not

supported by substantial evidence; (3) the ALJ failed to fully

develop the r ecord by not ordering another evaluation of Niera’s

condition; and (4) the ALJ posed an incomplete hypothetical

question to the vocational expert such that the witness’ testimony

was not credible.

Needless to say, our review o f the Commissioner’s final

decision is limited to whether there is substantial evidence in the

record to support the decision; and wheth er it comports with

relevant legal standards. E.g., Martinez v. Chater , 64 F.3d 172,

173 (5th Cir. 1995). “Substantial evidence is that which is

relevant and sufficient for a reasonable mind to accept as adequate

to support a conclusion; it must be more than a scintilla, but it

need not be a preponderance.” L eggett v. Chater

, 67 F.3d 558, 564

(5th Cir. 1995). The Commissioner’s findings are conclusive and- 3 -

must be affirmed when they are supported by substantial evidence.

Martinez , 64 F.3d at 173.

Moreover, we have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s

final decision only when the claimant has exhausted administrative

remedies. E.g., P aul v. Shalala

, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994).

An issue has not been administratively exhausted unless it has been

specifically presented to the Appeals Council. I d. N iera contends

that the ALJ’s determination that her impairment or combination of

impairments did not match or equal a listed impairment was not

supported by substantial evidence. Because Niera failed to

administratively exhaust this issue, we lac k jurisdiction to

address it.

As for the remaining contentions raised by Niera, the district

court’s decision is affirmed for the reasons stated by the district

court. S ee Neira v. Chater

, SA-96-CA-0422 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 31,

1997).

AFFIRMED