* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 29, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MARCUS D. SEWARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-5140

(D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00464-TCK-PJC)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

Marcus D. Seward appeals from a judgment of the district court affirming

the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of his

application for disability benefits and supplemental security income benefits.

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we

affirm.

Appellate Case: 09-5140 Document: 01018411625 Date Filed: 04/29/2010 Page: 1
-2-

Mr. Seward claimed disability beginning in June 2004, due to back and

neck injuries, depression, and a childhood polio deformity. The Administrative

Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied benefits after finding that Mr. Seward: (1) had the

severe impairment of degenerative disc disease; (2) his impairment did not meet

or equal a listing; (3) he was not entirely credible; and (4) he retained the residual

functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work. On appeal, Mr. Seward

raises the same issues he raised in the district court: (1) the ALJ did not properly

evaluate his credibility; (2) the ALJ did not apply the correct legal standards in

assessing his RFC; and (3) the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by

substantial evidence. 

We review de novo the district court’s decision to reverse the

[Commissioner], applying the same standards as those employed by

the district court. Judicial review of the [Commissioner’s] decision

is limited to a determination whether [his] factual findings are

supported by substantial evidence and whether [he] applied the

correct legal standards.

Nguyen v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1400, 1402 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). We

have reviewed, de novo, the district court’s decision, which adopts the report and

recommendation of the magistrate judge to affirm the Commissioner’s denial of

benefits. The report and recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned and

persuasive on each point argued by Mr. Seward again in this court. We see no

reason to repeat the analysis, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons set

Appellate Case: 09-5140 Document: 01018411625 Date Filed: 04/29/2010 Page: 2
-3-

for in the report and recommendation dated August 6, 2009, and adopted by the

district court in its September 8, 2009 order. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-5140 Document: 01018411625 Date Filed: 04/29/2010 Page: 3