Case Name: Donald H. GRAHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-29
Citations: 252 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 05-17173
Parties: Donald H. GRAHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 252
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
Donald H. GRAHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-17173.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 18, 2007.
Filed Oct. 29, 2007.
Mark Ross Caldwell, Esq., Caldwell & Ober, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Leo R. Montenegro, Esq., SSA — Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge.
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The pivotal issue on appeal is whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) impermissibly afforded more weight to the opinion of the non-examining psychologist than that of the examining psychologist. Because substantial evidence in the record supported the ALJ's determination that the examining psychologist's opinion was inconsistent with the other objective evidence in the record, his denial of benefits complied with our governing precedent. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148-49 (9th Cir.2001) (recognizing that the ALJ may reject an examining physician's opinion after weighing that opinion in the context of the entire record).
Donald Graham's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.