IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-31244 Summary Calendar

CECILE A. LENNIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-2296-LLM -------------------- August 4, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1 Cecile A. Lennix appeals from the grant of summary judgment for the Commissioner of Social Security in her action for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision denying her application for disability benefits for the period after July 11, 1995. Lennix contends that the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence; that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ignored evidence she submitted; and that she was deprived of due process.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

The Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971).

Lennix’s depression (the basis for an award of benefits for the period ending July 11, 1995) had been treated successfully by July 11, 1995, and her medication ultimately was discontinued; her diabetes, diagnosed after July 1995, was under control with medication; and her respiratory condition and associated bloating were under control with medication. Lennix’s contention regarding the records she submitted is unavailing –- the administrative record, which supported the Commissioner’s determination, contained all but one of the documents about which Lennix now complains.

That document added no support to Lennix’s disability claim.

Finally, the Due Process Clause does not require that each and every claim receive a full hearing before a judge at each step of review.

AFFIRMED.