N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AR NOLD DEAN ADKINS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-55715 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00138-JAHJM A M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. Houston, Distric

t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 30, 2016 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd B E R Z ON, C irc uit Judge s. Arnold De an Adkins a

p pe a ls pro se the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l in pa rt of his a pplic ation for supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e (“ SSI” ) unde r Title XVI of the Soc i a l Se c urity Ac t. 

# FIL ED JAN 04 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).At ste p five of the se que n tia l e va luation proc e s s, the a dm inistra tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) found tha

t de spite Adkins’ s se ve re im pa irm e nts of right shoulde r proble m s a

nd de pre ssion, hewa s not disa b le d prior to Nove m

be r 1, 2010, be c a

use the re we re jobs tha

t e xiste d in signific ant num be rs in the nationa l e c onom y tha t he c ould ha v e pe rform e d . The ALJ found tha t suc h jobs c e a se d to e xist on Nove m be r 1, 2010, whe n Adkins’ s a g e c ate gory c ha nge d to tha

t of a n individual of a dva

nc e d a ge , a nd he the n be c a

m e disa b le d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. M

olina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). W e a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt. Adkins c o nte nds tha

t he be c a m e disa ble d, a nd e n title d to SSI, on July 28, 2008, thedate he file d his a pplic ation for be ne fits, ra the r tha n on Nove m

b e r 1, 2010, but hedoe s not e xpla in why the ALJ’ s de c ision is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The ALJ did not err in his findings. He provide d a spe c ific and le gitim ate re a s on, supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e , for re

je c ting in pa

rt a tre ating doc tor’ s opinion re ga

rding Adkins’ s shoulde r c ondition. S e eGhanim v . C

olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th C ir. 2014). TheALJ’ s findings re ga rding the va

rious psy c hiatric opinions were favora

b le to Adkins. The

ALJ e nga ge d in the re quire d two-step ana ly sis of Adkins’ s c re d ibility and provide d spe c ific , c le a r and c o nvinc ing 2re a s ons for finding tha t he wa s not e ntire ly

c re d ible . Se e id. at 1163; Tre ic hle r v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th C ir. 2014). In a ddition, the A LJ did not a

buse his disc re tion in finding tha t Adkins re a c he d a dva

nc e d a ge on Nove m

be r 1, 2010, e v e n though hedid not turn 55 until a pproxim at e ly

six m onths la te r. Se e Loc k

w ood v . C

omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 616 F.3d 1068, 1069 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha t “ [w] he re a

c la im ant is within a

fe w da y s or a fe w m onths of re a c hing a

n olde r a ge c at e gory

(a ‘ borde rline situa

tion’ ), an ALJ ha s disc re tion, but is not re quire d, to usethe olde r a ge c ate gory ” ) (quoting 20 C .F.R . § 404.1563(b)). The ALJ wa s not re quire d to c onside r Adkins’ s prior a ward of Soc ia l Se c urity be ne fits, whic h did not e sta blish his c ontinuing disa

bility . Se e StubbsDanie lson v . Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th C ir. 2008) (holding tha t the re is no pre sum

ption of c ontinuing disa

bility onc e be ne fits ha

ve be e n te rm inate d for m ultipley e ars, e v e n for a non-m e dic a l re a son.). AFFIRM E D.

3