Acord v. Chater, Sec ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PHYLLIS A. ACORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 95-3040
SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge.
(CA-94-713-5)
Submitted: November 5, 1996
Decided: January 30, 1997
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Belinda S. Morton, Fayetteville, West Virginia, for Appellant. Char-
lotte Hardnett, Chief Counsel, Region III, Victor Jerry Pane, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECUR-
ITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A.
Betts, United States Attorney, Carol A. Casto, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Phyllis Acord appeals the district court's decision accepting the
report of the magistrate judge and finding that Acord was not entitled
to social security disability benefits from January 23, 1990, until
March 31, 1990, the date her insured status expired. We have care-
fully reviewed the briefs and other material before us. We conclude
that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision that Acord
did not meet her burden of showing that her condition worsened after
January 22, the date of a previous final disability adjudication adverse
to Acord, to the point that she was unable to return to her past work
as a police dispatcher.
Further, to the extent that Acord requested reopening of the prior
adjudication, the refusal to reopen that decision is not reviewable
under either the Administrative Procedure Act or 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(1994). Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 104-109 (1977). Addition-
ally, the questions of reopening and the res judicata effect of the prior
decision were not raised before the Appeals Council or in the district
court, and we will therefore not consider them here. Pleasant Valley
Hosp., Inc. v. Shalala, 32 F.3d 67, 70 (4th Cir. 1994). Finally,
Acord's failure to object to the magistrate judge's refusal to consider
the period through January 22, 1990, waives her right to appellate
review of the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48
(1985).
We dispense with argument because our review of the material
before us reveals that argument would not aid the decisional process.
The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
2