
    Valerie Y. LEVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-1154.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 8, 2003.
    Kenneth W. Ebener, Taylor & Ebener Law Firm, L.L.C., West Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, John B. Grimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Yvette G. Keesee, Regional Chief Counsel, Region VIII, Bonnie E. Sims, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Valerie Y. Lever appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s termination of disability income benefits. On appeal, Lever raises three specific issues: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s finding that her medical condition had improved; (2) whether the court erred in affirming the Commissioner’s consideration of her medical condition and ability to perform “past relevant work” only at the time of the initial cessation determination in February 1998 and not at the time of the ALJ decision in June 1999; and (3) whether the court erred in failing to find that the ALJ did not follow the sequential evaluation analysis.

We must uphold the district court’s disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990). We have reviewed the record in light of Lever’s arguments on appeal and find no reversible error. Furthermore, we find sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s decision to terminate benefits based upon medical improvement. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594 (2003). Accordingly, we affirm the termination of benefits. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  