### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 30290 Summary Calendar

MARLIN J. THOMAS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:15

- CV

- 26

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * This is an appeal from the district court’ s j udgment affirming the magistrate judge’s denial of Plaintiff

- Appellant Mar l in J. Thomas’s effort s to obtain judicial reversal of the multi

- level administrative determination that he was sufficiently improved med ically that his Social Security benefits for chronic asthma would cease effective December 31, 2012. We note that (1) Thomas first received reconsideration from the Commissioner that resulted in

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-30290 Document: 00513706121 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2016No. 16

- 30290

2 the upholding of the initial determination terminating his b enefi ts; (2) he was then afforded a hearing by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ” ) who agreed that Thomas was medically improved and his benefits should terminate as of December 31, 2012 ; (3) he had his request for review considered and denied by the Appe als Council ; (4) he had the magistrate judge consider his district court action and recommend affirmance of the Commissioner’s decision ; and (5) he had the district court overrule his objection to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judg e and c onclude that the findings were correct. After these five consistent rejections of hi s claims bene fits, Thomas appealed to this
court

— his sixth effort following those first five unsuccessful attempts.
Under the highly restrictive , substantial

- evidence standard of review applicable to court challenges of the Commissioner’s findings in cases such as this, we are limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner and whether the Commissioner followed the co rrect legal standards. Our review of the record on appeal , including the briefs of the parties , satisfies us that Thomas has rece ived due process at every level

— administrative and judicial

— this appeal being the sixth . And, the conclusions

w ere unanim ous that h is disability benefits were properly terminated as of December 31, 2012. Our thorough review of this matter satisfies us that the Commissioner followed the correct legal standards and that the Commissioner’s determination is supported by substan tial evidence , and therefore should be affirmed.
Although we afford significant deference to parties such as Thomas who proceed pro se, there is a limit to such deference , and Thomas has received

more than the required deference at every level. We conclu de that his contentions on appeal are wholly without merit, and he is cautioned that Case: 16-30290 Document: 00513706121 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2016No. 16

- 30290

3 further efforts to prolong this matter could be met with sancti ons for frivolous proceedings.
The judgment of the district court affirming the Commissioner’s decision is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED. Case: 16-30290 Document: 00513706121 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/05/2016