Case Name: Donna M. STEECE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-07
Citations: 11 F. App'x 950
Docket Number: No. 00-35130; D.C. No. CV-98-03080-DCA
Parties: Donna M. STEECE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, GREENBERG, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 950–951

Head Matter:
Donna M. STEECE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-35130.
D.C. No. CV-98-03080-DCA.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 11, 2001.
Decided June 7, 2001.
Before GOODWIN, GREENBERG, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Larry G. Massanari, is substituted for his predecessor, Kenneth S. Apfel, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The Honorable Morton I. Greenberg, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This matter is before us on an appeal from the order of the district court uphold ing the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits to the plaintiff, Donna M. Steece. We review the district court's order de novo. See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2000). On this appeal Steece claims that the ALJ's decision must be reversed because he incorrectly (1) rejected her testimony as to her subjective symptoms without clear and convincing reasons based on specific findings in the record, and (2) held that her combined impairments did not limit her equivalently to any impairments in the regulatory Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt. P, app. 1 ("List") that would automatically qualify her for benefits.
After a careful review of this matter, we are satisfied that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and that he applied the correct legal standards. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). Consequently, we have no reason to disturb the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.