The judgement of the district court is affirmed for the reasons explained in the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation of March 8, 2004. The Administrative Law Judge properly weighed all of the evidence in the record as a whole in rejecting the conclusions of the claimant’s treating physician. See Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1991); Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, there is substantial evidence supporting the determination that the claimant was not disabled pursuant to 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00A. Finally, it was not error to consider the claimant’s daily activities in determining that her impairments were not totally debilitating and did not prevent her from performing significant work activities. See Chaparro v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1987); Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 565 n. 12 (5th Cir. 1995); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(C)(2). AFFIRMED.