
    Gary L. CORUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-3247.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2004.
    Decided May 25, 2004.
    James H. Green, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jerry Lee Short, Kansas City, MO, Frank V. Smith, III, Chief Counsel, Kevin B. Murphy, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Gary L. Corum applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments, claiming the onset of disability in April 1999 because of the residual effects of testicular cancer and its treatment, pancreatitis, abdominal and testicular pain, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, and depression. After a hearing, the Commissioner’s administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the application, finding that Corum is a younger individual who suffers from a combination of impairments that are considered severe but do not equal a listed impairment; that he is unable to perform his past relevant work; that his “allegations regarding his limitations are not credible;” and that he has transferable work skills and the residual functional capacity to perform a significant range of light work.

After the Appeals Council denied Co-rum’s request for further administrative review, he commenced this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, concluding that the agency’s final decision is supported by substantial evidence on the administrative record as a whole. Corum appeals, arguing that the ALJ erred in discounting a residual functional capacity assessment by Corum’s treating physician as inconsistent with the physician’s treatment records and the other medical evidence, and that the ALJ erred in discounting Corum’s complaints of disabling pain and fatigue and therefore failed to include all relevant impairments in posing hypothetical questions to the vocational expert who testified at the administrative hearing. The district court’s thorough opinion addressed each of these issues. After thorough review of the record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s Order dated July 29, 2003. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The HONORABLE NANETTE K. LAUGHREY, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
     