Case ID: f-appx_263/html/0589-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ruth B. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-35614.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 7, 2007.
    
    Filed Jan. 10, 2008.
    John E. Seidlitz, Jr., Esq., Seidlitz Law Office, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    George F. Darragh, Jr., Esq., USGFOffice of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Wayne M. Stanley, Esq., Social Security Administration Assistant Regional Counsel, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: McKEOWN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruth B. Miller appeals the judgment of the district court denying Miller’s motion for summary judgment, granting the motion for summary judgment of the Commissioner of Social Security, and affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Miller’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434.

We review the district court’s judgment de novo. Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2004). The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is “supported by substantial evidence and if the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.” Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2003).

After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court’s thorough opinion properly analyzed Miller’s claims, and we adopt that opinion as our disposition of this appeal.

AFFIRMED 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.