James Buckley v. LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43 c

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
NO. 01-2439
____________
JAMES BUCKLEY,
Appellant
v.
*LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))
____________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-03589)
District Judge: Honorable Charles R. Weiner
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 17, 2002
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and MAGILL*, Circuit Judges.
(Filed March 14, 2002 )
____________
OPINION
____________
____________________
*Honorable Frank J. Magill, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
James Buckley seeks review of the District Court’s determination that the
Administrative Law Judge’s ("ALJ") ruling was supported by "substantial evidence"
when he found that Mr. Buckley was not disabled in accordance with the Social Security
Act. Buckley was formerly a bartender and warehouseman. He last worked full-time in
1992, and alleges that he became disabled in 1994 due to pain in his groin and lower
back.
Our role as a reviewing court is limited to determining whether the
Commissioner’s decision is supported by "substantial evidence" which is "such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). We are bound by the ALJ’s findings of
fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Plummer v. Apfel, 186
F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999).
The ALJ found Buckley’s subjective complaints not fully credible. One of his
doctors, Dr. Albornoz, had noted that his complaints were "out of proportion" to what he
encountered in his examination and imaging studies. The ALJ found that Buckley’s daily
activities, although somewhat limited, were consistent with the ability to perform

-- 1 of 2 --

sedentary work. Another doctor, Dr. Dworkin, stated that Buckley’s pain was controlled
so that he could function in a "fairly normal manner." The ALJ relied on the grids to
direct a finding of non-disability.
The District Court affirmed the ALJ’s ruling noting that the objective medical
evidence did not support Buckley’s allegations of total disability. The District Court
addressed each of Buckley’s contentions. These were: (1) the ALJ erred in finding that
his testimony was not fully credible; (2) that the ALJ erred by failing to take into account
the impact of the side effects of his medication; and finally (3) that the ALJ erred in
relying on Rule 201.27 to find that he was not disabled.
The District Court considered all of these contentions and analyzed them
thoroughly, rejecting them in a ten-page memorandum opinion and order. Buckley raises
these same issues on appeal. After a thorough review of the record, and giving due
consideration to the briefs filed in this appeal, we find that the District Court’s opinion
sets forth the proper reasoning with respect to each of these issues. Accordingly, we will
not restate the analysis here but, instead, incorporate by reference the memorandum
opinion and order of the District Court in this matter.
Accordingly, we will AFFIRM the District Court’s order.
____________________ TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Please file the foregoing Not Precedential Opinion.
/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --