Pantoja argues (1) that she suffers from a medical condition equal to an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations, (2) that the Commissioner erred i n determining that her subjective complaints of pain were credible only to the extent that they were compatible with her ability to perform a limited range of light and sed entary work, (3) that the Commissioner failed to carry its burden of showing that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that she could perform gainfully, and (4) that the Commissioner’s decision failed to list her specific nonexertional work limitations. 3 Pantoja’s first argum ent–-that she suffers from a medical condit ion which meets or equals a listed impairment–-is inadequately briefed and therefore waived. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). After reviewing Pantoja’s remaining arguments and the record, we hold that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is based on the proper legal standard s. S ee Ripley v. Chater , 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1 995). Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s final judgment is A F F I R M E D. * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 1 In the district court, both parties consented to proceedings before a magistrate judge. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50934 Summary Calendar ROSEMARY PANTOJA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-98-CV-214-HG July 13, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rosemary Pantoja appeals the magistrate judgeÂ’s final judgment affirming the Social Security CommissionerÂ’s denial of disability insurance benefits

3 In her statement of the issue, Pantoja states that the issues on appeal include “[w]hether the Commissioner properly found that [s he] could perform her past relevant work . . . .” Wisely, Pantoja does not attempt to brief this issue in the body of her brief. The statement is flatly contradicted by the record. In concluding that Pantoja was not disabled, the Commissioner determined that, although Pantoja cou ld not perform her past relevant work, she wa s capable of other substantial gainful activity.