Shealy v. Apfel, Commissioner

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 17, 2000
• Docket: 00-1733
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT B. SHEALY,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  No. 00-1733 KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-98-2068-6-18AK)

Submitted: November 9, 2000

Decided: November 17, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Robertson H. Wendt, Jr., ROBERTSON H. WENDT, P.A., Charles- ton, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attor- ney General, J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, James D. McCoy, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Chief Counsel, Region VIII, Thomas S. Inman, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. 2 SHEALY v. APFEL Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Shealy appeals from the district court’s order granting sum- mary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security on his claim for disability benefits. Shealy claims that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred when the ALJ found that: (1) Shealy’s past relevant work as an assistant principal and administrative assistant to the superinten- dent of schools was most like that of an educational consultant, as defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; and (2) Shealy was able to perform sedentary work despite his chronic neck pain. Having reviewed the briefs and the administrative record, we find that sub- stantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision denying benefits.

Shealy also claims that the ALJ erred in conducting the fourth step in his sequential analysis because he did not consult a vocational expert to determine the nature of Shealy’s past relevant work. Because this issue was not raised below, we decline to consider it on appeal. See Bregman, Berbert & Schwartz, L.L.C. v. United States, 145 F.3d 664, 670 n.8 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1205 (4th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Shealy v. Apfel, No. CA-98-2068-6-18AK (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2000). 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