UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1286
CHESTER SANDERLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle,
Chief District Judge. (CA-02-62-2-1BO)
Submitted: November 3, 2004 Decided: January 18, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Frank D. Whitney,
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, Thomas M. Bondy,
Teal Luthy Miller, Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Civil Division,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Mason Hogan, KATHLEEN SHANNON GLANCY, P.A., Wilmington,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”), appeals the district court’s order
remanding the case to the administrative law judge for further
development of the record. We affirm.
Our review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to
an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence to support
the findings of the Commissioner, and whether the correct legal
standards were applied. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v.
Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). When there are
conflicting physician opinions, as in this case, we have required
explicit indications as to the weight given to all the evidence.
See Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984) (citing
cases); see also Murphy v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 433, 437 (4th Cir.
1987).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Sanderlin v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-62-2-1BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2003).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -