UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN A. EPPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 97-2497
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge.
(CA-96-239-3-P)

Submitted: April 28, 1998

Decided: May 19, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Tomi W. Bryan, Lisa W. Bullard, BRYAN, BULLARD & HOUG-
LAN, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway,
United States Attorney, Joseph L. Brinkley, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case arises from a denial of Social Security benefits. On Feb-
ruary 23, 1994, Marvin Epps, a thirty-eight year old male with rele-
vant work experience as a cook and a painter, filed applications for
disability benefits and supplemental security income alleging disabil-
ity due to back and hip pain. The applications were denied and an
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found Epps not disabled after a
hearing on December 28, 1994. The Appeals Council declined Epps'
request to review the ALJ's decision, thereby making the ALJ's deci-
sion the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981
(1997). Epps then filed a civil action seeking review of the denial of
the benefits. A magistrate judge recommended affirmation, and the
district judge adopted the recommendation and affirmed the Commis-
sioner's decision. This appeal followed.

This court must determine whether the Commissioner's findings
are supported by substantial evidence, Richardson v. Perales, 

, 401 (1971), and whether the correct legal standards were
applied. Hays v. Sullivan, 

, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Sub-
stantial evidence is that evidence which "a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 

(internal quotations omitted). Epps attributes the following errors to
the Commissioner's decision: (1) the ALJ erred in finding that his
depression did not qualify as a severe mental impairment; (2) the ALJ
failed to give proper weight to the Veterans Administration's opinion
that he was unemployable; (3) the ALJ improperly found that his back
injuries did not meet or equal the criteria in Medical Listing 1.05C;
(4) the ALJ improperly assessed his subjective complaints of pain and
failed to address his wife's corroborative testimony; (5) the ALJ
improperly found that he is capable of light work and that such work
is available. Based on these alleged errors, Epps asserts the Commis-
sioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

                    2
We have reviewed the record, briefs, and pertinent case law in this
matter. Our review persuades us that the district court correctly found
that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits is based upon sub-
stantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge. Epps v. Apfel, No. CA-96-239-3-P (W.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 1997).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3