UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1154
VALERIE Y. LEVER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-01-3246)
Submitted: September 24, 2003 Decided: October 8, 2003
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth W. Ebener, TAYLOR & EBENER LAW FIRM, L.L.C., West Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney,
John B. Grimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Yvette G.
Keesee, Regional Chief Counsel, Region VIII, Bonnie E. Sims,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Valerie Y. Lever appeals the district court’s order accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s
termination of disability income benefits. On appeal, Lever raises
three specific issues: (1) whether substantial evidence supports
the Commissioner’s finding that her medical condition had improved;
(2) whether the court erred in affirming the Commissioner’s
consideration of her medical condition and ability to perform “past
relevant work” only at the time of the initial cessation
determination in February 1998 and not at the time of the ALJ
decision in June 1999; and (3) whether the court erred in failing
to find that the ALJ did not follow the sequential evaluation
analysis.
We must uphold the district court’s disability determination
if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). We
have reviewed the record in light of Lever’s arguments on appeal
and find no reversible error. Furthermore, we find sufficient
evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s decision to
terminate benefits based upon medical improvement. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1594 (2003). Accordingly, we affirm the termination of
benefits. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3