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 judgment affirming the 

magistrate judge’s denial of Plaintiff-Appellant Marlin J. Thomas’s efforts to 

obtain judicial reversal of the multi-level administrative determination that he 

was sufficiently improved medically 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 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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

2

the upholding of the initial determination terminating his benefits; (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 Appeals 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 judge and conclude that the findings were correct. After 

these five consistent rejections of his claims benefits, 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 correct legal 

standards. Our review of the record on appeal, including the briefs of the 

parties, satisfies us that Thomas has received due process at every level —

administrative and judicial — this appeal being the sixth. And, the conclusions

were unanimous that his 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 substantial 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 conclude that his 

contentions on appeal are wholly without merit, and he is cautioned that 

 Case: 16-30290 Document: 00513706121 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2016
No. 16-30290

3

further efforts to prolong this matter could be met with sanctions 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