Daugherty v. Barnhart

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 05-10549
Summary Calendar
_______________
KATHERINE DAUGHERTY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
m 2:02-CV-83
______________________________
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Katherine Daugherty appeals a judgment af-
firming the decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (“the Commissioner”) to deny
her application for supplemental security in-
come benefits. Finding no error, we affirm.
Daugherty applied for benefits in October
1999, claiming impairments including degen-
erative disc disease and severe depression. A
hearing before an administrative law judge
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
(“ALJ”) was held in November 2000. In Jan-
uary 2001, the ALJ returned an unfavorable
decision, finding, based on the medical re-
cords, that Daugherty had the capacity to re-
turn to her past work as a waitress. The ALJ’s
decision was the final administrative decision
of the Commissioner in this matter.
Daugherty saught judicial review in district
court. The magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation evaluating the ALJ’s de-
cision and determining that it was supported
by substantial evidence. The district court
adopt ed the report and recommendation and
affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to deny
benefits. On appeal, Daugherty contends only
that the Commissioner’s decision is not sup-
ported by substantial evidence.
Our review is limited to determining wheth-
er there is substantial evidence in the record
supporting the Commissioner’s decision to
deny benefits and whether the Commissioner
applied proper legal standards in doing so.2
We may not re-weigh the record evidence, try
the issues de novo, or substitute our judgment
for that of the Commissioner.3
Conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved
by the Commissioner, not the courts. Laffon
v. Califano, 558 F.2d 253, 254 (5th Cir.
1977). Only a “conspicuous absence of credi-
ble choices” or “no contrary medical evidence”
will support a finding of no substantial evi-
dence. Hames v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 162, 164
(5th Cir. 1983). If, under these criteria, sub-
stantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s
findings, they are conclusive. See 42 U.S.C. §
405(g).
Daugherty’s sole contention is that the
ALJ’s interpretation of the evidence was mis-
guided. She makes no substantive arguments
on appeal that she did not make before the
magistrate judge. Based on our independent
review of the ALJ’s decision and the adminis-
trative record, we find the report and recom-
mendation of the magistrate judge to be a
proper disposition of the issues in this case.
That report accurately evaluates the record ev-
idence relied on by the ALJ and correctly ap-
plies the proper legal principles in finding that
substantial evidence supports the Commis-
sioner’s decision.
Essentially for the reasons stated in the re-
port and recommendation, the judgment is AF-
FIRMED.
2 See Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236
(5th Cir.1994); Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340,
347 (5th Cir.1998).
3 See Johnson, 864 F.2d at 343.

-- 2 of 2 --