*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10480

Summary Calendar

CURTIS M. ARCHIBALD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 2:05-CV-65

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denied Curtis Archibald’s application for supplement security income benefits (“SSI benefits”),

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
1 Archibald claims he has at least 25 ailments, including rotator cuff injuries, depression, dessication, degenerative disc disease, bipolar disorder, and sleep apnea.

2

and the district court agreed. Archibald appeals, and we affirm. 

I.

Archibald worked as a mechanic and an oil derrick hand. Although he

never graduated high school, he did earn a GED. At age 47, he filed an application for title XVI SSI benefits, alleging he had become disabled.1

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing and ruled that Archibald was not disabled. Using the five-step process required by 20 C.F.R.

§ 416.920(a)(4), the ALJ found that (1) Archibald had not engaged in a substantially gainful activity since his disability filing; (2) he had a severe impairment

from degenerative disc disease; (3) his disabilities did not qualify for presumptive disability; and (4) he was unable to perform past relevant work based on his

residual functional capacities. Ultimately, however, the ALJ found at step five

that Archibald could perform other work based on his age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. 

The Appeals Council denied Archibald’s request for review, thus making

the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final administrative decision ripe for

judicial review. Archibald sued, and the magistrate judge recommended the

Commissioner’s final decision be upheld. The district court adopted the recommendation.

II.

“In reviewing the Commissioner’s determination, we consider only whether

the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards and whether substantial

evidence in the record supports the decision to deny benefits.” Audler v. Astrue,
3

501 F.3d 446, 447 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236

(5th Cir. 1994)). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla and less

than a preponderance.” Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 271 (5th Cir.

2002) (citation omitted). It consists of “such relevant evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Audler, 501 F.3d at 447

(citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971)). Our job is to review the record for the presence of relevant evidence, not to reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for the Commissioner’s. See Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457,

461 (5th Cir. 2005).

Archibald alleges that the ALJ did not have substantial evidence when it

found him to have residual functional capacity. The notes of several doctors, including Archibald’s treating psychologist, Mustafa Hussain, disprove that assertion. Hussain, with whom Archibald had a long term relationship, stated several

times in his treatment notes how Archibald was not disabled. He noted that Archibald was not depressed, did not exhibit mental problems, and was “doing well

from a psychiatric point of view.” The ALJ relied on those statements, providing

part of the substantial evidence needed. 

Although Hussain ultimately believed Archibald was disabled, the numerous references in Hussain’s notes to Archibald’s healthy condition did not support that conclusion, and the ALJ had discretion to reject that medical opinion

as “brief [,] conclusory [, and not] otherwise supported by the evidence.” Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Scott v. Heckler, 770

F.2d 482, 485 (5th Cir. 1985)). The ALJSSnot this courtSSshould weigh the various medical facts and opinions, and that weighing correctly took place here with

the ALJ’s examination of Hussain’s medical notes.

Other evidence also showed that Archibald was not disabled. Another

physician, Dr. Cutts, stated in his notes that he could not “indicate [that Archi-
4

bald] is disabled.” The same notes also indicate that Archibald had been lifting

objects weighing over 100 pounds only weeks before one appointment. Other

physicians examining Archibald found inconsistencies in his symptoms and his

testimony and concluded that his impairments had only a minimal impact on his

ability to function.

With the evidence from the doctors, the ALJ had substantial evidence to

find that Archibald was not disabled. The judgment is AFFIRMED.