Case Name: Judy L. HEFLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-28
Citations: 96 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 03-2021
Parties: Judy L. HEFLIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
Judy L. HEFLIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 03-2021.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 31, 2004.
Decided April 28, 2004.
J. Kevin Morton, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Robert Triba, Regional Chief Counsel, Lisa G. Smoller, Assistant Regional Counsel, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Judy L. Heflin appeals the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to affirm the Commissioner's denial of social security disability benefits. On appeal, Heflin maintains that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the Administrative Law Judge allegedly ignored the treating physician's opinion without providing an explanation for doing so. We affirm.
We must uphold the district court's disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990). We have reviewed the record in light of Heflin's arguments on appeal and find no reversible error. Furthermore, we find sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. Accordingly, we affirm. We dis pense 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