Case Name: Willie H. MITCHELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-27
Citations: 62 F. App'x 455
Docket Number: No. 03-1131
Parties: Willie H. MITCHELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 455–456

Head Matter:
Willie H. MITCHELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-1131.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2003.
Decided March 27, 2003.
Willie H. Mitchell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Barbara Dickerson Koch-er, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Willie H. Mitchell, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits. Mitchell contends only that the district court overlooked the Commissioner's fail ure to consider the report of a consultative physician as required by Social Security Ruling 96-6p ("SSR 96-6p"). We affirm.
This court reviews the Commissioner's final decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir.1995). Because the Commissioner's decision indicates that the opinion of the consultative physician was considered and provides reasons for the weight accorded to that physician's report, we find no violation of SSR 96-6p. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(f) (2002).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.