Donner 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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
September 18, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20525
Summary Calendar
GEORGE DONNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-738
__________________________________________
Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Donner, on behalf of the estate of Dorothy E. Donner (“Donner”), appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Social Security Commissioner regarding the denial
of her application for disability benefits. Donner makes the following arguments: (1) her impairments
satisfied the requirements of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P. App. 1, 12.06(A)&(B)(anxiety related
disorders), (2) the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) determination that she could perform prior

-- 1 of 2 --

2
work as a vending machine attendant was not supported by substantial evidence, and (3) the ALJ
failed to determine whether she could maintain employment for a significant period of time.
Donner failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which
determined that the ALJ properly found that Donner could perform past relevant work and that the
ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, Donner’s appeal of the district
court’s decision adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions is reviewed for plain error.
See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc);
Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1988).
After reviewing the record and both parties’ appellate arguments, we find no such error.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --