UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2644
JOHN H. MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. James K. Bredar, Magistrate Judge. (CA-
99-471-AW)
Submitted: June 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen F. Shea, WILLONER, CALABRESE & ROSEN, P.A., College Park,
Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attor-
ney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur J.
Fried, General Counsel, Charlotte J. Hardnett, Principal Deputy
General Counsel, James A. Winn, Associate General Counsel, Char-
lotte M. Connery-Aujla, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John H. Murphy appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying
Murphy’s motion for summary judgment, granting the Commissioner’s
motion for summary judgment, and upholding the Commissioner’s de-
nial of Murphy’s application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income.* On appeal, Murphy contends that the
administrative law judge erred in relying on the testimony of a
vocational expert as to the types of work Murphy could perform. We
have reviewed the briefs and the administrative record and find
that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision de-
nying benefits. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp. 2000); Coff-
man v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Murphy v.
Apfel, No. CA-99-471-AW (D. Md. Oct. 8, 1999). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).
2