* 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. Pursuant to Fe d. R. App. Proc. 43(c), Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, is subs tituted for Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the defe ndant in this action. Although we have substituted the Commissioner for the Secretary in the caption, in the text we continue to refer to the Secretary b ecause she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying 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** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 7/29/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

EDDIE D. BUNTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-6412 (D.C. No. CV-95-96) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before ANDERSON, LOGAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.-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. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34 (f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order a ffirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plai ntiff’s applications for disability insurance benefits and for supplemental security income. We exercise jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Plaintiff alleges disability since April 29, 1992, due to back, head, neck, shoulder, and right hand problems, including pain. After conducting a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits at step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920, after determining plaintiff does not suffer from a severe impairment. When the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for revi ew, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Secretary from which plai ntiff sought judicial review. The district court affirmed the decision of the Sec retary. This appeal followed. “We review the Secretary’s decision to determine wh ether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the Secretary appl ied the correct legal standards.” Washington v. Shalala , 37 F.3d 1437, 1439 (10th Cir. 1994). Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might-3-

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Rich ardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)(quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB , 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Plaintiff argues that substantial evidence does notsupport the ALJ’s finding that he does not have a severe impairment. Plaintiff maintains the ALJ did not appropriately evaluate plaintiff’s complaints of pain, did not properly assess plaintiff’s credibility, and substituted his own opinion for the medical findings. These issues were thoroughly addressed i n the district court. For substantially the reasons stated by the district co urt in its order of September 19, 1995, and in the findings and recommendations of th e magistrate judge of August 21, 1995, adopted in full by the district court, we affirm as to these issues. Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ did not fully an d fairly develop the record. Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel at the ALJ hearing and in the district court, did not raise this argument in the district court. See Plaintiff’s Opening Brief before the district court attached to his brief before this court. Because there are no compelling reasons to considerthis newly raised argument, we decline to do so. See Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994).-4-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge