Case Name: Sarah JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-29
Citations: 55 F. App'x 519
Docket Number: No. 02-5053
Parties: Sarah JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 519–520

Head Matter:
Sarah JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-5053.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 29, 2003.
Michael D. Clay, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Loretta F. Radford, Office of the United States Attorney, Tulsa, OK, Linda H. Green, Office of the General Counsel, Dallas, TX, Defendant-Appellee.
Before BRISCOE, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.
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.
We review the decision of the Commissioner, expressed as the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ), to determine if the correct legal standards were applied and if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 905 (10th Cir.2001). The claimant, Ms. Jones, raises three issues: (1) whether the ALJ failed to properly consider the medical source opinions; (2) whether the ALJ's assessment of claimant's credibility was supported by substantial evidence; and (3) whether the ALJ's finding regarding claimant's residual functional capacity was supported by substantial evidence. Having reviewed the parties' arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that Ms. Jones has not pointed to any reversible legal error and that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's order of February 28, 2002.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.