United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 27, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30877
Summary Calendar
GERALD WAYNE ZILLS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport
USDC No. 5:05-CV-452
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gerald Wayne Zills filed a claim under the Social Security Act for
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Zills’s claim and the Appeals
Council affirmed the decision of the ALJ. Treating the decision of the
Appeals Council as the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth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.
Security, Zills filed suit in the district court for the Western District of
Louisiana seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision.
Specifically, Zills argues that the ALJ erred by defining “moderate” mental
limitations for the vocational expert in a way that implies that one with such
limitation can still perform the task satisfactorily. The case was referred to a
Magistrate Judge who reviewed the record and briefs submitted by both
parties. The Magistrate Judge affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to
deny benefits. After considering and denying Zills’ motion to alter or amend
the judgment, the Magistrate Judge entered final judgment denying any
relief to Zills. Zills appeals to this Court.
Our review is limited to determining (1) whether there is substantial
evidence in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner’s decision,
and (2) whether the Commissioner’s decision comports with relevant legal
standards. Jones v. Apfel, 174 F.3d 692, 693 (5th Cir. 1999). We have
carefully reviewed the briefs, record excerpts, and relevant portions of the
record itself. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
Ruling, we affirm the decision of the district court to enter final judgment
against Zills.
AFFIRMED.