Nixon v. Barnhart

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 24, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-40370
Summary Calendar
TOMMY W. NIXON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CV-701
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tommy W. Nixon (“Nixon”) has appealed the denial of his
application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title
XVI supplemental security benefits. Nixon contends that the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to consider all of the
medical evidence when deciding that he did not meet or equal the
criteria of Listing 1.03 of the Listing of Impairments. He also
contends that the ALJ applied an improper legal standard by
failing to consider the cumulative effect of his impairments and

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 04-40370
-2-
failed to fully develop the record regarding the nature of the
medical procedures he underwent. Nixon further argues that the
magistrate judge (“MJ”) erred in substituting his personal
medical opinion for that of the physicians and that the ALJ did
not properly assess the severity of his pain.
This court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is
limited to determining whether substantial evidence in the record
supports the decision and whether the Commissioner applied the
proper legal standards. Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236
(5th Cir. 1994). In his decision, the ALJ provided a
chronological discussion of the relevant medical evidence
concerning Nixon’s impairments, including the medical procedures
Nixon underwent. The ALJ’s decision that “none of [Nixon’s]
impairments either singly or in combination” satisfy the criteria
for any Listing Impairment is supported by substantial evidence.
See Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995); Owens v.
Heckler, 770 F.2d 1276, 1282 (5th Cir. 1985).
Nixon’s argument that the MJ substituted his personal
medical opinion for that of the physicians is not supported by
the record. Further, his argument is unavailing because the
correctness of the district court’s decision is not before this
court. This court’s review is to be made independently of the
determinations of the district court, and without regard to
whether the district court acted correctly. See Cieutat v.
Bowen, 824 F.2d 348, 359-60 (5th Cir. 1987). Nixon failed to

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 04-40370
-3-
raise his claim that the ALJ did not properly assess the severity
of his pain before the district court. Thus, this court need not
consider it. See Castillo v. Barnhart, 325 F.3d 550, 552 (5th
Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --