                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                       _______________________

                             No. 97-20343
                           Summary Calendar
                       _______________________


DARRELL LEON BOOKER,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

                               versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,
Commissioner of Social Security,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                           (H-96-CV-832)
_________________________________________________________________
                          January 5, 1998


Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

          Darrell Leon Booker appeals from the summary judgment

affirming the denial of his application for disability insurance

benefits and Supplemental Security Income.

          Booker contends that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

did not consider all of his medical records.     We have reviewed the

record and find that the additional documents submitted by Booker




     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
were considered by the ALJ or the information contained in the

documents was presented to the ALJ.

           Booker also relies on his orthopedic doctor’s opinion

that he is permanently disabled and this his limitations are

similar to listing 1.04A in Appendix 1.           His doctor’s brief and

conclusory opinion is not adequately supported by the record as a

whole.    Spellman v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 357, 364-65 (5th Cir. 1993).

The medical evidence in this case reveals that Booker does not

exhibit   symptoms   in   both   shoulders.      Accordingly,     there    is

substantial   evidence    to   support    the   ALJ’s   finding   that    his

impairment did not meet or equal the medical criteria for any

impairment listed in Appendix 1.         See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart

P, Appendix 1, Listing 1.04.

           AFFIRMED.




                                    2
