IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30807
Summary Calendar
LINDA F. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(98-CV-1450)
--------------------
February 3, 2000
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Mitchell appeals from the district
court’s judgment affirming the denial of her application for
supplemental security income. She argues that the district court
applied an improper legal standard to conclude that she was not
prejudiced by the Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”) refusal to
order a consultative mental examination, that the ALJ erred in
applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines because the Guidelines
fail to take into account her non-exertional impairments, and that
the district court erred in modifying the Commissioner's decision
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
by concluding that she retained the ability to perform the full
range of sedentary work and was therefore not entitled to
disability benefits.
We have reviewed the record and find that the district court
did not err in concluding that Mitchell did not carry her burden of
showing that she was prejudiced by the ALJ’s failure to order a
consultative mental examination. See Kane v. Heckler, 731 F.2d
1216, 1220 (1984). Neither did the ALJ commit a legal error in
applying the Guidelines after determining that Mitchell's non-
exertional impairments did not significantly affect her residual
functional capacity to work. See Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614
(5th Cir. 1990). Nor did the district court err in modifying the
Commissioner's decision by applying a different Guideline to
conclude that Mitchell retains the residual functional capacity to
perform the full range of sedentary work; and that decision is
supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Mays v.
Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.
2