IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit
FILED
_____________________ February 11, 2008
No. 07-50809
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
LEROY JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC 1:06-CV-743
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Leroy Jackson is before us on appeal, the sixth step
on his climb up the administrative and judicial ladder in search of Social
Security benefits, which has now been rejected by the Commissioner, the
Administrative Law Judge, the Appeals Council, a magistrate judge, a
district judge, and —— now —— this court. We affirm.
Jackson, a high school graduate approximately 57 years old and a
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
smoker, has no history of working at all, even though he has been determined
to be capable of moderate lifting, standing, and relatively mild exertional
functions, despite lower back pain and shortness of breath. Supported by
more than substantial evidence and by clearly defensible credibility calls, the
ALJ and the magistrate judge have —— on the basis of the record on appeal
which we have carefully reviewed —— made totally defensible, correct, and
non-reversible determinations that Jackson is not entitled to the benefits he
seeks. Indeed, among the innumerable appeals from denials of Social
Security benefits that the judges of this panel have seen in their combined
decades of service on the federal courts, few if any have been as wholly
lacking in merit as this one: If it is not frivolous, it certainly bumps up
against the boundary of that category. Jackson may not be aware of this, but
his counsel certainly must be; and she is counseled accordingly.
For the reasons given by the Administrative Law Judge and the
magistrate judge in rejecting Jackson’s claims, the judgment of the district
court is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
2