UNPUBLISHED

Kimberly Poller appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon careful review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision that Poller is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 993 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). After ordering consultative neurological and psychological examinations and eliciting testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ found that Poller retains the residual functional capacity to perform a wide range of light work and the full range of sedentary work. Poller has not shown prejudice from the ALJ’s failure to further develop the record, see id. at 994 (to remand for additional evidence, claimant must establish that ALJ’s failure to fully develop record resulted in prejudice), and the ALJ gave good reasons for discrediting Poller’s complaints of disabling pain, see Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 792 (8th Cir. 2005) (this court will not disturb decision of ALJ who considers, but for good cause expressly discredits, claimant’s complaints of disabling pain).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.