UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CHERYL A. FAGG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 98-2644 KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-118-R) Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: August 23, 1999 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HALL,* Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Charles D. Bennett, Jr., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Alonzo H. Long, Assistant _________________________________________________________________ *Senior Judge Hall was assigned to the panel for this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). United States Attorney, Arthur J. Fried, General Counsel, Charlotte J. Hardnett, Principal Deputy General Counsel, John M. Sacchetti, Associate General Counsel, Etzion Brand, Acting Chief, Retirement, Survivors and Supplemental Assistance Litigation Branch, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Cheryl Fagg appeals the district court's order dismissing this action seeking social security disability insurance benefits (DIB) for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Fagg filed her first application for DIB in 1992, alleging disability as of December 31, 1980. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. An administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an unfa- vorable decision, which the Appeals Council upheld. The district court found that substantial evidence supported the decision denying benefits, and this court affirmed. See Fagg v. Chater, No. 95-2097 (4th Cir. Feb. 3, 1997) (unpublished). Fagg filed a second application for DIB in 1995, again claiming a disability onset date of December 31, 1980. She alleged the same dis- abling conditions as in her previous application for benefits. After her application was denied initially and on reconsideration, Fagg requested a hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ dismissed her request, finding that res judicata barred consideration of her request for a hear- ing, which involved the identical facts and issues as the earlier deci- sion. The ALJ also found no reason to reopen the earlier decision. Fagg then filed a complaint in the district court. Acting pursuant to the parties' consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994), a magistrate 2 judge concluded that the ALJ properly denied Fagg's request for a hearing and that the court was without subject matter jurisdiction to address her claims. Fagg timely appeals from that decision. She asserts that the Commissioner and the district court erred by failing to reopen her prior claim and by applying res judicata to bar consider- ation of her present claim for benefits. Fagg also contends that she was under a mental disability such that the denial of her request for a hearing deprived her of due process. After carefully reviewing the materials before us, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision and the correct law was applied. We discern no reversible error in the deci- sion below, and we accordingly affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Fagg v. Apfel, No. CA-98-118-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 5, 1998). 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