ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Sheila Devere, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") denying her claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI") under the provisions of Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the "Act"). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff protectively filed her applications on October 16, 2015, alleging an inability to work since February 25, 2015, due to degenerative disc disease, bulging and ruptured discs, knee problems, arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, hearing loss, cataracts, and diabetes. (Tr. 21, 275). An administrative hearing was held on February 16, 2017, at which plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 61-89).
By written decision dated on May 22, 2017, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe: cervical degenerative disc disease s/p cervical fusion, lumbar degenerative disc disease, right knee osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, carpal tunnel syndrome, and hearing loss. (Tr. 18-25). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal the severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 25). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
(Tr. 25-31). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ found Plaintiff had no past relevant work but would be able perform the representative occupations of a housekeeper or a price tag ticketer. (Tr. 31-32).
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 8). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 13, 14).
This Court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Plaintiff raises the following issues in this matter: 1) Whether the ALJ erred by failing to resolve a possible conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the DOT; and 2) Whether the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff retained the RFC for a wide range of light work. (Doc. 13). The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties' briefs. For the reasons stated in the ALJ's well-reasoned opinion and in the Government's brief, the Court finds Plaintiff's arguments on appeal to be without merit and finds the record as a whole reflects substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision. Accordingly, the ALJ's decision is hereby summarily affirmed and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Sledge v. Astrue, 364 Fed. Appx. 307 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court summarily affirmed the ALJ).
IT IS SO ORDERED.