FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 17, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
MARTY COLEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 12-5189
(D.C. No. 4:07-CV-00249-CVE-TLW)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting (N.D. Okla.)
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,*
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT**
Before HOLMES, HOLLOWAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Pro se plaintiff Marty Coleman appeals from a judgment of the district court
that affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to deny restoration of his disability
insurance benefits. In so ruling, the court adopted the recommendation of the
*
In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the defendant-appellee in
this action.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
magistrate judge. Exercising jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we affirm.
Mr. Coleman is an involuntary patient at a mental health institution in the State
of Oklahoma. He was sent to the facility in the early 1980s after being adjudicated
not guilty by reason of insanity related to several felony offenses. Mr. Coleman
applied for and was granted disability insurance benefits in the late 1980s. In the
mid-1990s, Congress changed the law to cut off such benefits for individuals who are
confined in an institution at public expense in connection with a finding of not guilty
by reason of insanity. 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1)(A). Nonetheless, Mr. Coleman sought
restoration of his benefits under the theories that § 402(x)(1)(A) is a bill of attainder
and ex post facto law, and that the statute violates the double jeopardy clause of the
United States Constitution. Moreover, he argued that he was entitled to benefits
before the late 1980s because a note card at the institution allegedly indicated that his
application should have been filed at an earlier date. Mr. Coleman also tacked on a
claim for disabled adult child benefits.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on January 15, 2010,
at which Mr. Coleman testified. The ALJ issued a decision on February 10, 2010, in
which he denied Mr. Coleman’s claims. The appeals council denied review and the
district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to uphold
the ALJ’s decision.
-2-
Our task is to review the Commissioner’s decision to ascertain whether it is
supported by substantial evidence in the record and to evaluate whether the correct
legal standards were applied. Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687, 689 (10th Cir. 2000).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In a thorough report and recommendation dated October 1, 2012, the
magistrate judge analyzed each of Mr. Coleman’s claims using the same standard that
governs our review. We have reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law,
and conclude that the magistrate judge’s analysis is correct. We see no reason to
repeat that analysis here.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
-3-