Court Opinion

ID: 1000263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:37:40.490243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:21.754784
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOANNE MARSHBURN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                       No. 99-1464
JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-97-503-PJM)

Submitted: September 30, 1999

Decided: November 18, 1999

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Stephen F. Shea, WILLONER, CALABRESE & ROSEN, P.A., Col-
lege Park, Maryland, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief
Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, David F. Cher-
mol, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia; Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Joanne Marshburn appeals from the magistrate judge's order grant-
ing summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security on her
claim for social security disability insurance benefits. The parties vol-
untarily consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999). We have
reviewed the briefs, appendix, and administrative record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

On appeal, Marshburn raises the following issues: (1) the magis-
trate judge erred in his determination that substantial evidence sup-
ported the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision that she is
capable of performing a full range of sedentary work; (2) the ALJ
improperly ignored the opinion of her treating physician; (3) the ALJ
failed to properly analyze her complaints of pain; and (4) the ALJ
erroneously determined that she lacked credibility.

Our review persuades us that the magistrate judge correctly found
that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits was based on sub-
stantial evidence. See Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.
1990). We also find that the ALJ properly weighed the opinion of
Marshburn's treating physician, see Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590
(4th Cir. 1996), properly analyzed Marshburn's subjective complaints
of pain, see id. at 595, and made a proper credibility finding pursuant
to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1999). Accordingly, we affirm on the rea-
soning of the magistrate judge. See Marshburn v. Callahan, No. CA
97-503-PJM (D. Md. Feb. 12, 1999). 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

                     2