United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-40401

Summary Calendar

____________

Bradley Thomas Boone, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security; Kelly 

Matthews, Administrative Law Judge, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:21-CV-279

______________________________

Before Clement, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

In 2016, Bradley Boone filed an application with the Social Security 

Administration for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security 

income benefits. When his application was denied, Boone requested a 

hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ, Kelly Mathews, 

conducted the Social Security Administration’s five-step evaluation process 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 29, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-40401 Document: 00517017135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2023
No. 23-40401

2

for determining whether an individual is disabled within the meaning of the 

Social Security Act. The ALJ found that Boone (1) had “not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity” since the date of his alleged disability; (2) was 

severely medically impaired; (3) did not have an impairment that met the 

severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, 

Appendix 1; (4) did not have the residual functional capacity to perform his 

past work as an airplane pilot; and (5) did have the residual functional 

capacity to perform “the full range of sedentary work,” and thus was 

“capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in 

significant numbers in the national economy.” The ALJ therefore concluded 

that Boone was not disabled. Boone requested review of the ALJ’s decision, 

but his request was denied by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals 

Council.

Boone then sought judicial review of the Social Security 

Administration’s decision. The district court determined that the record 

“lack[ed] substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Boone [was]

capable of performing sedentary work,” and therefore reversed the decision 

of the ALJ and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration’s 

Appeals Council. Boone v. Saul, No. 3:19-CV-00175, 2020 WL 2150523, at 

*3–4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 

2130992 (S.D. Tex. May 5, 2020). The Appeals Council, in turn, remanded 

back to the ALJ for a new hearing and decision.

ALJ Matthews held a new hearing on November 3, 2020, and issued a 

new decision on December 17, 2020. The ALJ’s new five-step evaluation 

reached the same conclusions as her original evaluation with the exception of 

Step 5, at which the ALJ recognized that Boone could only “sit for 30 minutes 

at a time and then would need to stand for 5-10 minutes before resuming a 

sitting position” but nonetheless found that Boone had the residual 

functional capacity to perform at least some sedentary work and that such 

Case: 23-40401 Document: 00517017135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2023
No. 23-40401

3

jobs were available. So, ALJ Matthews again held that Boone was not 

disabled. The Appeals Council again denied Boone’s request to review the 

ALJ’s decision, and Boone again returned to federal court.1 This time, the 

district court granted summary judgment to the Social Security 

Administration. Boone appeals, pro se. 

Our review of social security disability claims is “exceedingly 

deferential and limited to two inquiries: whether substantial evidence 

supports the ALJ’s decision, and whether the ALJ applied the proper legal 

standards when evaluating the evidence.” Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600, 602 

(5th Cir. 2012). Although Boone raises multiple issues on appeal, only two

fall within this scope. 

First, Boone contends that ALJ Matthews lacked substantial evidence 

in support of her determination that Boone was not disabled within the 

meaning of the Social Security Act. We disagree. As the district court 

explained, “the ALJ thoroughly reviewed Boone’s medical records and the 

medical opinions therein,” and this documentation “provide[d] substantial 

evidence that supports the ALJ’s decision.”

Second, Boone claims that ALJ Matthews’ decision contradicted the 

factual findings and legal conclusions in the district court’s remand decision. 

But it did not. Again, the district court’s decision explains why:

[The district court] previously . . . remand[ed] because there 

was not substantial evidence in the record “to support a 

sedentary exertional level.” Specifically, [the court] found that 

although the record supported “that Boone can sit for a 

_____________________

1 Boone filed in federal court in October 2021—after the ALJ’s December 2020 

decision but before the Appeals Council’s September 2022 denial. The district court 

forgave Boone’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit due to 

“extraordinary circumstances.”

Case: 23-40401 Document: 00517017135 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2023
No. 23-40401

4

maximum of 30 minutes,” the record did not support “that 

Boone can sit six hours of an eight-hour workday,” which is 

what “sedentary work” implies. On remand, ALJ Matthews 

fully addressed this issue by confirming with a vocational 

expert that there exist sedentary occupations in the national 

economy in significant numbers that would accommodate 

someone like Boone who can sit for only 30 minutes at a time.

So, far from contradicting the findings in the district court’s remand order, 

the ALJ’s subsequent decision faithfully adhered to them and considered 

whether appropriate occupations were available that could accommodate 

Boone’s limitation.

As for Boone’s remaining claims on appeal—including, among other 

contentions, that the district court violated Boone’s civil rights in 

adjudicating his case, that ALJ Matthews perjured herself, and that the 

district court attempted to cover up ALJ Matthews’ perjury—we find them

to be outside of the limited scope of our review and, in any event, meritless.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-40401 Document: 00517017135 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/29/2023