
    Ricky A. GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-10556
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Jan. 26, 2005.
    
      Robert E. Barfield, Amarillo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Cheryl Chapman, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Ricky A. Graham appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits. He argues that the determination by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that he did not meet or equal the criteria of any impairments listed in Appendix 1, 20 C.F.R. Part 404 was not supported by substantial evidence. Graham contends that he met the requirements for establishing the affective disorder of depression under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.04. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and conclude that ALJ’s determination that Graham’s depression did not meet or equal the criteria of any impairments listed in Appendix 1, 20 C.F.R. Part 404 is supported by substantial evidence. See Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir.1992); Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021-22 (5th Cir.1990). The ALJ was not required to give precedence to subjective evidence over objective evidence which showed that Graham’s depression was not disabling. Anthony, 954 F.2d at 295-96. Further, no doctor testified that Graham was disabled as a result of his alleged depression. Vaughan v. Shalala, 58 F.3d 129, 131 (5th Cir.1995).

Moreover, Graham’s testimony regarding his daily activities was inconsistent with his claimed limitations. Reyes v. Sullivan, 915 F.2d 151, 154-155 (5th Cir.1990). Finally, medical records showed that Graham was prescribed Wellbutrin and that he was responding well to the medication. See Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 348 (5th Cir.1988). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
     