N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C LIFTON T. HASTINGS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF SOC IAL SEC URITY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-35761 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-01054-SI
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 27, 2014 ** B e fore : D. NELSON, LEAVY, a nd THOM AS, C irc u it Judge s. C lifton T. Ha stings a

p pe a ls pro sethe distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of Ha stings’ s third a pplic ation for disa bility insura nc e be n e fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e unde r Title s II and 

# FIL E D JUL 01 2014 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd
we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t it la c ke d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion to de c ide whe the r the C om m issione r fa ile d to m e e t a n obliga tion to
re ta in there c o rd of Ha stings’ s first a pplic at ion for be ne fits in 2000. The C om m issione r’ s re te ntion or loss of re c ords is not a “ fina l de c ision”subje c t to re vie w. Se e42 U.S.C . § 405(g); De x te r v . C olv in , 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th C ir. 2013). The distric t c ourt a l so la c ke d jurisdic tion to c onside r whe the r the C om m issione r se t a

n inc orre c t onse t da

te whe n gra

nting Ha stings’ s subse que nt, fourth a pplic ation for be ne fits. Thec ourt ha d jurisdic tion only to re vie w the C om m issione r’ s fina l de c ision de ny ing Ha stings’ s third a pplic ation for be ne fits. Se e42 U.S.C . § 405(g); De x te r , 731 F.3d a

t 980. Ha stings c onte nds tha

t the a dm inistra

tive la w judge e rre d by

fa iling to order IQ te sting be c a

use suc h te sting might ha ve e sta blishe d a liste d im pa irm e nt. This
c onte ntion la c ks m e rit be c a use the re c ord wa s a d e q

uat e to a llow for prope r e va luation of thee vide nc e . Se eMay e s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th C ir. 2001). The low a

v e ra ge inte lle c tua l func tiona lity re porte d by an e xam ining

2psy c hologist would not m e e t or e qua l the re quire m e nts of thelistings. Se e K e nne dy v . C olv in , 738 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th C ir. 2013). Any e rror in the ALJ’ s pa

rtia l re je c tion, without expla

nation, of theopinion of a non-e xam ining psy c hologist wa s ha rm le ss be c a

use e v e n if the ALJ ha d
a c c e pte d the psy c hologist’ s findings, Ha stings’ s im pa irm e nts would not ha

ve m e t the l istings. Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). W e de c line to c onside r a dditional issue s unsupporte d by argum e nt in the ope ning brie f. Se eInde

p. Tow e rs of W

ash. v . W a shington , 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th C ir. 2003). AFFIRM E D.

3