UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TRULADAIR BURGESS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 95-2018

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

Mary S. Feinberg, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-94-65)

Argued: May 10, 1996

Decided: June 17, 1996

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, NORTON, United States

District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by

designation, and DOUMAR, Senior United States

District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia,

sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Amy Ryan Alexander, APPALACHIAN RESEARCH

AND DEFENSE FUND, INC., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Robert Drum, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Charlotte Hardnett, Chief

Counsel, Region III, James A. Winn, Supervisory Assistant Regional

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts,

United States Attorney, Stephen M. Horn, Assistant United States

Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Truladair Burgess appeals from a magistrate judge's 1 affirmance of

the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her

application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Finding no error,

we affirm.

I.

Truladair Burgess is 48 years old. She completed the seventh grade

but is illiterate. She began working when she was fifteen and worked

for the next 25 years at a variety of jobs, including bartender, waitress, cook, and hotel maid. Burgess says she injured her back in 1987

and has not worked since then except for two months in 1991 when

she worked as a bartender.

Burgess filed her first application for SSI benefits on February 5,

1990. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Virginia Mae Brown,

denied Burgess's claim on February 19, 1991. ALJ Brown found that

Burgess could perform light work with limitations in bending, stoop-

_________________________________________________________________

1 Both parties consented to a decision by a United States Magistrate

Judge.

 2
ing, prolonged standing, walking and sitting. She also found that jobs

existed in the national economy which Burgess could perform and,

accordingly, held that Burgess was not entitled to SSI benefits. Burgess never appealed that decision.

Burgess filed the present application for SSI benefits on May 23,

1991. Following a hearing, a second ALJ, R. G. Goosens, denied Burgess's claim on December 28, 1992. ALJ Goosens found that "[t]he

medical evidence establishes that the claimant has borderline intellectual functioning, history of otitis media, tendinitis, peptic ulcer disease, hypertension, degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral

spine, and history of bronchitis. She also has an anxiety disorder and

dysthymia." The ALJ then noted that Burgess's treating physician,

Dr. Martin, said that Burgess may have problems with prolonged

standing or heavy lifting. From this the ALJ inferred that Burgess was

capable of performing at least light-level jobs.

After considering all the evidence, ALJ Goosens concluded that

Burgess had the following residual functional capacity:

the ability to do light work, reduced by: illiteracy; an occasional ability to climb, to balance, to stoop, to crouch, to

kneel and to crawl; the need to avoid temperature extremes,

humidity, and moving machinery; borderline intellectual

functioning, but with good ability to make occupational

adjustments; seriously limited ability to understand, remember, and carry out complex instructions; limited but satisfactory ability to understand, carry out, and remember detailed

but not complex job instructions; and unlimited ability to

understand, carry out, and remember simple job instructions.

The claimant also has good ability to maintain personal

appearance, behave in an emotionally stable matter, relate

predictably in social situations, and demonstrate reliability;

the need for a sit/stand option for positioning during a work

day, and mild to moderate pain at most.

ALJ Goosens then instructed a vocational expert to assume an individual with the same age, education, previous relevant work experience, and specific residual functional capacity as Burgess. The ALJ

asked if such an individual could perform a significant number of jobs

 3
which exist in the regional or national economies. The vocational

expert replied that such an individual could perform the jobs of eye

dropper assembly worker; button paster; stamping, labeling, and stuffing laborer; ticket taker/usher; food tray assembly worker; and hand

packer. Based on the expert's testimony, ALJ Goosens found that the

Commissioner carried her burden of proving that Burgess could

engage in certain light work and therefore denied Burgess's application for SSI benefits.

On March 24, 1995, a magistrate judge affirmed the Commissioner's denial of Burgess's claim, and this appeal followed.

II.

On appeal, Burgess argues that (1) ALJ Goosens failed to incorporate the findings of fact previously made by ALJ Brown, (2) substantial evidence does not support the finding that she can perform light

work, (3) substantial evidence does not support the finding that Burgess does not suffer from depression, and (4) substantial evidence

does not support the finding that Burgess can perform jobs named by

the vocational expert.

After carefully considering the record, the briefs and the arguments

of the parties, we conclude that the magistrate judge correctly

affirmed the Commissioner's denial of Burgess's claim. First, the

magistrate judge correctly concluded that ALJ Goosens' findings

were consistent with those of ALJ Brown. Second, we agree that the

ALJ was entitled to give greater weight to the opinion of Burgess's

treating physician in finding that Burgess can perform light work.

Third, we agree that the ALJ's finding that Burgess does not suffer

from severe depression is amply supported by Burgess's testimony

and the reports of Mr. Legg and Dr. Andrews.2 Accordingly, we

_________________________________________________________________

2 We decline to address Burgess's contention that substantial evidence

does not support the ALJ's finding that she can perform the jobs named

by the vocational expert. This argument was not raised before the ALJ

or the magistrate judge, and thus we need not consider it. See Pleasant

Valley Hospital, Inc. v. Shalala, 32 F.3d 67, 70 (4th Cir. 1994) ("As a

general matter, it is inappropriate for courts to consider arguments not

raised before the administrative agency involved.").

 4
affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's thorough opinion. See Burgess v. Shalala, No. CA-5:94-0065 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 24,

1995).

AFFIRMED

 5