Michael E. Walters v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security on Appeal From the United…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2750
___________
MICHAEL E. WALTERS,
Appellant,
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-02603)
District Judge: The Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 23, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges,
and CAPUTO, District Judge.
(Filed January 30, 2002)
___________
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Michael E. Walters, appeals from an order of the District
Court which granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security,
alleging as error the issues listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from appellant’s brief.
Because we conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.
I.
The allegations of error asserted by appellant are as follows:
1. Whether the Commissioner’s final decision denying appellant’s claim for
Disability Insurance Benefits is supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether the Commissioner denied the appellant a full and fair hearing on
his claim.
3. Whether the District Court applied an incorrect standard of review,
conducting a de novo review of the evidence, substituting its judgment for
that of the Administrative Law Judge.

-- 1 of 2 --

II.
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties
and the court. We see no reason to restate them here. Moreover, under the usual
circumstances when we affirm by Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, we "briefly
set[-] forth the reasons supporting the court’s decision...." United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.4. The reasons for writing
an opinion are to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the attorneys and
parties, and to explain our decision. We use a Memorandum Opinion in cases, such as
this one, in which a published opinion is rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no
institutional or precedential value. See I.O.P. 5.2. In this case, with respect to Issues
One and Two, we have concluded that neither a memorandum explanation of reasons, nor
a published opinion is indicated because the Report and Recommendation prepared by the
magistrate judge, and which was adopted by the District Court, adequately explains and
fully supports the magistrate judge’s recommendation and the District Court’s order.
Hence, we believe it unnecessary to offer explanations and reasons, in addition to those
given by the magistrate judge and District Court, why we will affirm. It is a sufficient
explanation for all involved in this litigation to say that, essentially for the reasons given
by the magistrate judge in its report and recommendation and adopted by the District
Court in its order dated the 13th day of June, 2001, we will affirm as to Issues One and
Two.
With respect to the third issue, that is whether the District Court applied the
correct standard of review, we likewise see no error. The record indicates that the District
Court examined the entire record it had on review and determined that the ALJ had
properly evaluated all the evidence, including appellant’s position’s on the meaning of
"light work" and all the evidence pertaining to his limitation. It is apparent that the
District Court was merely reiterating the ALJ’s conclusion was supported by substantial
evidence. This was not de novo fact finding or re-weighing of evidence as appellant
argues. We will affirm as to this issue as well.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court dated the 13th day of June, 2001.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --