UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BETTY G. JARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 98-1168 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-789-2) Submitted: July 28, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL H. Russell Vick, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Mary Ann Sloan, Chief Counsel, Region IV, Haila Naomi Kleinman, Acting Branch Chief, John C. Stoner, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta Georgia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: This case arises from a denial of Social Security benefits. In December 1993, Betty G. Jarrell, a fifty-three year old female with relevant work experience as an order filler and a quilt/comforter stuffer, filed applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income alleging disability due to bronchitis, chronic obstruc- tive pulmonary disease, depression, nerves, borderline intellectual functioning, and an ulcer. The applications were denied and an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found Jarrell not disabled after a hearing on March 1, 1995. The Appeals Council declined Jarrell's request to review the ALJ's decision, thereby making the ALJ's deci- sion the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981 (1998). Jarrell then filed a civil action seeking review of the denial of the benefits. A magistrate judge recommended affirmation, and the district judge adopted the recommendation and affirmed the Commis- sioner's decision. This appeal followed.

This Court must determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971), and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Sub- stantial evidence is that evidence which a "reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Perales, 402 U.S. at 401 (internal quotations omitted). Jarrell attributes the following errors to the Commissioner's decision: (1) the ALJ did not fully develop the record and did not adequately assist Jarrell in the development of her case; and (2) the ALJ erred in finding that her various impairments did not meet or equal the criteria in Medical Listing 12.05C. Because of these alleged errors, Jarrell asserts the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

We have reviewed the record, briefs, and pertinent case law in this matter. Our review persuades us that the district court correctly found that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits is based on sub- stantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Jarrell v. Social Security Admin., No. CA-96-789-2 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 30, 1997). 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