UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DAVID CHARLES GROSS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 98-2296

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.

(CA-95-89-5-T)

Submitted: March 31, 1999

Decided: May 17, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Dianne Upson, Todd, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Joseph L. Brinkley, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David Charles Gross appeals the district court's order finding that

substantial evidence supported the decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security that he was not entitled to supplemental security

income (SSI) benefits. We affirm.

Gross, who was born in 1961 and has a twelfth-grade education but

no relevant work experience, applied for benefits alleging that he was

disabled due to a learning disability. The ALJ found that the learning

disability limited Gross to light work with additional restrictions. A

vocational expert (VE) testified that significant numbers of jobs that

Gross could perform existed in the North Carolina economy. On this

basis, the ALJ determined that Gross was not disabled for SSI purposes. The Appeals Council upheld this decision, which became the

final decision of the Commissioner. The district court found that the

Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence. This

appeal followed.

Our review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence

supports the Commissioner's decision and whether the correct law

was applied. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971);

Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial

evidence is that evidence which a "reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion." Perales , 402 U.S. at 401 (internal

quotations omitted). Gross claims on appeal that: (1) his impairment

met the requirements of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1 § 12.08

(1998); (2) the hypotheticals posed to the VE did not accurately

reflect his limitations; and (3) the ALJ did not adequately consider the

evidence.

We have reviewed the record, briefs, and pertinent case law in this

matter. Our review persuades us that the issues raised on appeal are

without merit, substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, and the correct law was applied. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Gross v. Apfel, No. CA-95-89-5-T

(W.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 1998).* We dispense with oral argument because

_________________________________________________________________

*Although the district court's order is marked as"filed" on July 28,

1998, the district court's records show that it was entered on the docket

 2
the facts and legal contentions are fully presented in the materials

before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

sheet on August 3, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically

entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th

Cir. 1986).

 3