Hodges v. Apfel, Commissioner ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2265
HAROLD W. HODGES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-99-4-7)
Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Bennett, Jr., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. James A.
Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Regional
Chief Counsel, Andrew Lynch, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of
the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, John
F. Corcoran, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Harold W. Hodges appeals from a magistrate judge’s decision
affirming an administrative law judge’s conclusion that Hodges is
not entitled to Social Security disability benefits.* We affirm.
Hodges suffers from a spinal condition that causes pain in his
lower back and his legs. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
found that this condition did not limit Hodges to the extent he
alleged. Hodges challenges this finding, but the record contains
substantial evidence to support it. See Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d
585, 591 (4th Cir. 1996).
Hodges also contends that, even if the ALJ was correct in
evaluating Hodges’s disability, there is not a significant number
of jobs available to him. Hodges asserts that he qualifies for no
more than 153 jobs. That number suffices to defeat Hodges’s claim
for disability benefits. See Hicks v. Califano, 600 F.2d 1048,
1051 n.2 (4th Cir. 1979).
For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the magistrate
judge. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1994).
2