T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A R C E L L U S D A V I S , J r ., P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C om m i s s i one rof S o ci al S ecu ri ty, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56411 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 3 5 0 0 - J F WRNB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn F . W a l t e r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 6, 2012 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a r c e l l us D a vi s , Jr . , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt uphol di ng the S oc i a l S e c ur i tyA dm i ni s tr a t i on C om m i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on r e gar di ng the c a l c ul a t i on of

D a vi s ’ s m onthl ybe ne f i t s . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s uantt o 28



# FI LED MA R 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56411 2 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on, a nd m ays e ta s i de the C om m i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on onl yi f i ti s ba s e d on l e ga l e rr orori s nots upport e d by s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d . T acke t t v. Apf el , 18 0 F . 3d 10 94 , 10 97 (9th C i r. 1999) . W e a f

f i rm. T he C om m i ss i on erprop er l y r educed D avi s’ s m on thl y S up pl em ent al S e c u r ityI n c o m e b e n e f

its b a s e do n th e r e tir e m e n t b e n e f its th a t D a v is b e g an to r e c e iv e . See 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 3 8 2 ( b ) ( e x p l a i n i n g th a tSup p l e me n t a l Se c u r i tyI n c o me b e n e f its a r e r e du c e db yth e a m o u n t o f in c o m e a n in d iv idu a l r e c e iv e s ) ; i d. at § 1382a ( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( de f

i ni ng i nc om e t o i nc l ude r e t i r e m e ntbe ne f i t s ) . T he ov erpaym entrul es ci t ed by D avi s do n otappl y t o h i m because the C om m i ss i on er h a s n o t a c k n o w le d g e d , o rs o u g h t an a d ju s tm e n t o rr e c o v e ryo f , an yo v e rp ay m e n t. See 20 C . F . R . § 404. 512 ( a n adj us tm e nt or reco veryto r e c o up a n o v e rp ay m e n t w ill n o t b e m a d e if

c e rta in c o n d itio n s ap p ly( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ) . T he C om m i s s i one rl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w w orke r s ’ c om pe ns a t i on b e n e f its a w a r d e dto D a v is b yo th e ra g e n c ie s . Se e, e . g. , 33 U . S . C . § 9 21 (b) ( orders unde rthe L ongs hor e a nd H a rborW orke r s ’ C om pe ns a t i on A c ta r e r e vi e w e d bythe B e ne f i t s R e vi e w B oa r d) . F urthe r , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the C o m m is s io n e r ’s d e c is io n n o t to r e o p e n D a v is ’s p r io rS o c ia l S e c u r ityb e n e f its d e te rm in a tio n . See M

at loc k v . Sul l i v an , 908 F . 2d 492, 493 ( 9th C i r . 1990)10- 56411 3 ( “ A ppe a l s C ounc i l de c i s i ons t o r e f r a i n f r om c ons i de r i ng unt i m e l ype t i t i ons f or re v iew ar e n o t fin al d ec isio n s s ub ject to re v iew infe d er al co u rt.”). D av is’s co n t en t i o n th atth e A d m i n i strat i v e L aw Ju d g e (“ A L J”) v i o l at edh i s du e p ro cess r ig h ts in th e p r io rh e a r in g is u n p e r s u a s iv e . Se e B oe t tc he rv . Se c ’ yof H e al th & H u m a n Servs. , 75 9 F . 2d 71 9, 72 3 (9th C i r. 19 85 ) ( expl ai ni ng the procedural prot ec t i on s a ff

orded ata heari ng before an A L J) . D a v is ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e a n dd is tr ic t c o u rt ju d g e s h o u ld b e r e c u s e dis u n a v a ilin g . Se e U ni te d States v . J

ohns on , 610 F . 3d 1138, 1147- 48 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( advers e rul i ng s are i nsuffi ci entt o w arrantre cusa l ). AF F I RME D.