Case Name: Chester SANDERLIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-18
Citations: 119 F. App'x 527
Docket Number: No. 04-1286
Parties: Chester SANDERLIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
Chester SANDERLIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-1286.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 3, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 18, 2005.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, Thomas M. Bondy, Teal Luthy Miller, Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Mason Hogan, Kathleen Shannon Glancy, P.A., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), appeals the district court's order remanding the case to the administrative law judge for further development of the record. We affirm.
Our review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner, and whether the correct legal standards were applied. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990). When there are conflicting physician opinions, as in this case, we have required explicit indications as to the weight given to all the evidence. See Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir.1984) (citing cases); see also Murphy v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 433, 437 (4th Cir.1987).
We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sanderlin v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-62-21BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2003). 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