United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

In the

January 13, 2006

United States Court of Appeals

Charles R. Fulbruge III

for the Fifth Circuit Clerk

m 05-10549

Summary Calendar

KATHERINE DAUGHERTY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

m 2:02-CV-83

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Katherine Daugherty appeals a judgment af-

Circuit Judges. firming the decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security ("the Commissioner") to deny

PER CURIAM:* her application for supplemental security in- come benefits. Finding no error, we affirm. Daugherty applied for benefits in October * Pursuant to 5 C R. 47.5, the court has de- TH IR. 1999, claiming impairments including degen- termined that this opinion should not be published erative disc disease and severe depression. A and is not precedent except under the limited cir- hearing before an administrative law judge cumstances set forth in 5 C . R. 47.5.4. TH IR ("ALJ") was held in November 2000. In Jan- 405(g). uary 2001, the ALJ returned an unfavorable decision, finding, based on the medical re- Daugherty's sole contention is that the cords, that Daugherty had the capacity to re- ALJ's interpretation of the evidence was misturn to her past work as a waitress. The ALJ's guided. She makes no substantive arguments decision was the final administrative decision on appeal that she did not make before the of the Commissioner in this matter. magistrate judge. Based on our independent review of the ALJ's decision and the adminis Daugherty saught judicial review in district trative record, we find the report and recomcourt. The magistrate judge issued a report mendation of the magistrate judge to be a and recommendation evaluating the ALJ's de- proper disposition of the issues in this case. cision and determining that it was supported That report accurately evaluates the record evby substantial evidence. The district court idence relied on by the ALJ and correctly apadopt ed the report and recommendation and plies the proper legal principles in finding that affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny substantial evidence supports the Commisbenefits. On appeal, Daugherty contends only sioner's decision. that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Essentially for the reasons stated in the re port and recommendation, the judgment is AF Our review is limited to determining wheth- FIRMED. er there is subst antial evidence in the record supporting the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits and whether the Commissioner applied proper legal standards in doing so.2 We may not re-weigh the record evidence, try the issues de novo, or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner.3 Conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved by the Commissioner, not the courts. Laffon v. Califano, 558 F.2d 253, 254 (5th Cir. 1977). Only a "conspicuous absence of credible choices" or "no contrary medical evidence" will support a finding of no substantial evidence. Hames v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1983). If, under these criteria, substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's findings, they are conclusive. See 42U.S.C. §

2 See Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir.1994); Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340,

347 (5th Cir.1998).

3 See Johnson, 864 F.2d at 343.