UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CARL G. BISHOP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                     No. 98-1901
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CA-97-2-B)

Submitted: February 23, 1999

Decided: June 14, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph E. Wolfe, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appel-
lant. James A. Winn, Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith,
Deputy Chief Counsel, David F. Chermol, Assistant Regional Coun-
sel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINIS-
TRATION; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Alonzo H.
Long, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Carl G. Bishop appeals the district court's order granting summary
judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security and affirm-
ing the Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insur-
ance benefits and supplement security income. We affirm.

This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. See
Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 

(4th Cir.
1988). Summary judgment is properly granted when there are no gen-
uine issues of material fact and when the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

, 323 (1986). All reason-
able inferences are to be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. See
Cole v. Cole, 

, 1092 (4th Cir. 1980).

Courts review the denial of social security benefits to determine
whether the Commissioner has applied the correct legal standards and
whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Hays
v. Sullivan, 

, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence
is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion." See Richardson v.
Perales, 

, 401 (1971). Although substantial evidence is
greater than a mere scintilla, it may be less than a preponderance. See
Shively v. Heckler, 

, 989 (4th Cir. 1984).

Bishop argues that the decision denying his request for benefits
was not based upon substantial evidence because the ALJ erroneously
disregarded the opinion of his treating physician. Our review of the
record, briefs, and district court's opinion accepting the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation reveals no reversible error. There-
fore, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bishop v. Apfel,
No. CA-97-2-B (W.D. Va. May 12, 1998). We dispense with oral

                     2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3