Case Name: Martha GLOVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-08
Citations: 44 F. App'x 33
Docket Number: No. 02-1046
Parties: Martha GLOVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 44
Pages: 33–34

Head Matter:
Martha GLOVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-1046.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted June 28, 2002.
Filed Aug. 8, 2002.
Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Martha Glover appeals a final decision of the district court denying her disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II and supplemental security income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We affirm.
Ms. Glover claimed disability due to pain in her right elbow, left leg, and back. Her claims were denied initially and on reconsideration by the agency. Subsequently, the administrative law judge (ALJ), after a hearing in which appellant was represented by counsel, denied her claims based on a determination that she could perform other work than her prior employment, which other work exists within the national economy. That ALJ decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the appeals council denied Ms. Glover's request for review. On appeal to the district court, the parties stipulated that a final decision should be made by the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.
Magistrate Judge Ray made a careful review of the record and determined that the ALJ's specific finding is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole that Ms. Glover could perform a range of light work that exists in the national economy.
On appeal, Ms. Glover contends that the ALJ did not properly shift the burden of proof to the agency to show that she could do other work in the national economy and that the ALJ did not properly evaluate her subjective complaints.
We reject these contentions as without substantial merit and affirm substantially on the basis of the magistrate judge's well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Affirmed.
. The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.