UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TRACIE P. MCGUINNESS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 97-2037

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-822-2)

Argued: April 6, 1998

Decided: May 29, 1998

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge,

and CHAMBERS, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Tomi White Bryan, BRYAN, WECKWORTH & BULLARD, P.C., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Carl

Stoner, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Georgia, for

Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lisa W. Bullard, BRYAN, WECKWORTH &
BULLARD, P.C., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank

W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Preston Strom, Jr., United

States Attorney, Mary Ann Sloan, Chief Counsel, Region IV, Malinda

C. Hamann, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Georgia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Tracie P. McGuinness filed an application for disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security

Act. She claimed that since June 15, 1993, she has been disabled by

reason of the combination of a status-post fracture and fusion of her

left ankle, chronic bronchitis, borderline intelligence, and a mental

disorder. Although the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that

these conditions in combination "impose more than minimal limitation on [McGuinness'] functional capacity and are therefore severe,"

he concluded that McGuinness retained "the residual function capacity for light work" with various specified limitations. In reaching that

conclusion, the ALJ found that McGuinness' testimony regarding her

daily activities was not "very credible as she appeared to minimize

what she actually was able to do" and that she exaggerated her symptoms. While the ALJ concluded that McGuinness would not be capable of returning to any of her past relevant work, he found that

McGuinness nevertheless "remains capable of performing light work

with the limitations described," working, for example, as an injection

machine operator, an assembler of small products, an electronics

worker, a buttoner in the garment industry, a second handler, and a

polypacker/heat sealer. Accordingly, he concluded that McGuinness

was not disabled within the meaning given by the Social Security Act.

The appeals council found no basis for a review, and therefore the

ALJ's decision became final.

 2
In her action filed in the district court, McGuinness claimed that

the ALJ's various conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who conducted a

detailed analysis of the ALJ's findings and concluded that each of the

challenged findings was supported by substantial evidence. He

accordingly recommended that McGuinness' motion for judgment be

denied and that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the

pleadings be granted and the action dismissed. The district court

reviewed the magistrate's recommendation de novo and affirmed,

adopting his recommendations in an order dated June 2, 1997.

McGuinness filed this appeal, raising substantially the same issues

that she presented to the district court.

We have carefully reviewed the record before us and considered

the arguments of counsel. Our review persuades us that the decision

of the district court adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation

is correct, and accordingly, for the reasons given by the magistrate

judge in his recommendations filed April 4, 1997, as adopted by the

district court on June 2, 1997, McGuinness v. Chater, Civil Action

No. 2:95CV00822 (M.D.N.C. June 2, 1997), we affirm.

AFFIRMED

 3