* Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secr etary of Health and

Human Services in social security cases were transf erred to the Commissioner of Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Although the c aption refers to the Commissioner, in the text we continue to refer to the Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying agency decision.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

*** Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designati on.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/19/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTY I. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-5042 (D.C. No. 95-C-158-J) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before PORFILIO, ALARCON, *** and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.1 The parties consented to proceed before the magistr ate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Accordingly, our jurisdicti on over this appeal arises under § 636(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. -2- After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Claimant Christy I. Johnson appeals from the distri ct court’s order affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny her benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Secu rity Act. Claimant applied for benefits in June of 1992, alleging disability as a result of back injury. Her request for benefits was denied administratively and upon r econsideration. A hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) was held in September of 1993. The ALJ’s resulting decision denied benef its, concluding that claimant was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied revie w, and claimant filed suit in federal district court. The magistrate’s order aff irmed the agency’s decision to deny benefits. 1 Agency regulations establish a five-step sequential analysis to evaluate disability claims. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988)(describing five steps in detail). Here, the ALJ reached step five, determining that claimant could perform a full rang e of light work. Our review of-3-

the agency’s decision is limited to determining whe ther the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole an d whether the correct legal standards were applied. Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). On appeal, claimant contends that the ALJ erred bec ause 1) he did not properly consider her allegations of disabling pain , 2) he failed to develop the record, and 3) he relied on the medical-vocational guidelines (the “grids”). After consideration of the arguments presented on appeal and after careful review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the agency and t he district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially th e same reasons set forth in the district court’s order dated December 13, 1995, andthe ALJ’s decision dated August 8, 1994, the judgment of the United States D istrict Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge