NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0561n.06

Filed: September 16, 2008

No. 07-6415

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CINDY G. TURNMIRE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COUR T F O R THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF

TENNESSEE

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: GUY, RYAN and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-appellant Cindy G. Turnmire appeals from the district court’s

September 21, 2007 judgment upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

granting in part and denying in part her application for disability insurance benefits. The

Commissioner determined that Turnmire was under a disability and entitled to disability insurance

benefits for the period February 26, 2001 through May 22, 2003, but had regained the residual

functional capacity to perform her past relevant work by May 23, 2003. The district court affirmed

the Commissioner’s decision, finding the conclusion that plaintiff had ceased to be under a disability

as of May 23, 2003 is supported by substantial evidence. The district court also ruled that additional

evidence presented to the Commissioner after the administrative law judge had completed the
No. 07-6415

Turnmire v. Commissioner of Social Security

We do not have the prerogative to consider the factual merits of plaintiff’s application de 1

novo, or to resolve conflicts in evidence, or to decide questions of credibility. Walters v. Comm’r

of Social Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997). Our review is limited to determining whether the

district court erred in finding that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Id. “Substantial evidence” is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate

to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). In

determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, we review the

administrative record as a whole, but we may not reverse the Commissioner’s decision merely

because there exists substantial evidence that supports a different conclusion. Buxton v. Halter, 246

F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001).

- 2 -

hearing and rendered his decision does not warrant remand for reconsideration pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g) because the evidence is not “material.”

Having duly considered the district court’s opinion and the administrative record in light of

the arguments advanced on appeal, we find no error. The district court’s conclusions (1) that the 1

Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) that the additional evidence

submitted by Turnmire does not warrant remand are clearly explained in its opinion and in the report

and recommendation adopted by the district court. In our opinion, every objection now raised by

appellant Turnmire is satisfactorily and properly answered within the four corners of the district

court’s ruling. Any additional opinion from this court would be purely duplicative. 

Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the district court’sjudgment on the reasoning set forth in

its opinion.