Court Opinion

ID: 866046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-04-29 17:11:12.549611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:43.108152
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
  
   *
  

  Naomi Haynes’s application for Supplemental Security Income Benefits was denied, and the denial was upheld by an administrative law judge. The Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied review, and Haynes sought relief in the district court. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for recommendation. He issued a detailed and comprehensive thirty-nine-page opinion recommending that the complaint be dismissed. The district court accepted the recommendation and entered final judgment, which Haynes appeals.
 

  The magistrate judge carefully considered all the evidence and concluded,
  
   inter alia,
  
  that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. The magistrate judge correctly concluded, for example, that Haynes does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals any of the listed impairments, that she is capable of performing her past relevant work, and that there are other available jobs that she can perform.
 

  There is no reversible error by the Commissioner or the district court. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons convincingly explained by the magistrate judge.
 

   *
  

   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.