FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 25 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
L. MONEKE THOMAS, No. 13-36162
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00572-JPD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James P. Donohue II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 26, 2015
Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Larreteyer Moneke Thomas appeals the district court’s decision affirming
the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We review the district
court’s order de novo, and may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Molina v. Astrue, 674
F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). Where evidence is susceptible to more than one
rational interpretation, we must uphold the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”)
findings “if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.”
Id. at 1111. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Thomas’s contention that the ALJ erred in affording little weight to Dr.
Connell’s opinion regarding her social functioning lacks merit. The ALJ provided
specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for
the assessment of Dr. Connell’s opinion. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211,
1216 (9th Cir. 2005). Thomas’s contention that the ALJ erred in finding that
Thomas’s allegations regarding her mental impairments were not credible also
lacks merit. The ALJ offered specific, clear and convincing reasons for finding
Thomas not credible in light of her daily activities, her failure to follow treatment
and the lack of objective support for her allegations. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue,
504 F.3d 1028, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec.
Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.