Court Opinion

ID: 992357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:50:53.038113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:59.794364
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT BOYCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                     No. 96-1787
SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
David L. Core, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-94-89-1)

Submitted: March 31, 1997

Decided: June 12, 1997

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Susan K. McLaughlin, MCLAUGHLIN & CURRY, Fairmont, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charlotte Hardnett, Chief Counsel,
Region III, James A. Winn, Supervisory Assistant Regional Counsel,
Thomas S. Inman, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General
Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Helen
Campbell Altmyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Boyce filed a claim with the Social Security Administration
in June 1992 for Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability
commencing December 29, 1991, as a result of a fracture of his left
leg. After denial and reconsideration, Boyce requested a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ decided that
Boyce was not disabled under the Social Security Act because Boyce,
while unable to perform any past relevant work, retained the func-
tional capacity for "work involving simple routine tasks of light exer-
tion." The Appeals Council denied Boyce's request for review. The
ALJ's decision then became the Commissioner's final decision.

Boyce filed a complaint in the district court challenging the final
decision of the Commissioner. The parties consented to a disposition
by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). The
magistrate judge entered a final order affirming the decision of the
Commissioner. This appeal followed.

We review the Commissioner's final decision to determine whether
it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law
was applied. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp. 1996); Hays v.
Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Boyce claims that sub-
stantial evidence does not support the ALJ's finding of Boyce's edu-
cational level as "limited or less" but not"illiterate." However, the
ALJ gave specific reasons for his determination and we will not dis-
turb it. See Hammond v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir. 1985).
The ALJ made a thorough evaluation of the evidence, and we con-
clude that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial
evidence and was based on the correct legal standards. The ALJ prop-
erly placed Boyce's level of education and literacy in the limited or
less but not illiterate category. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b)(2)-(3)
(1995).

                    2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3