Case Name: Ben L. MCKENZIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 158 F. App'x 59
Docket Number: No. 04-17012
Parties: Ben L. MCKENZIE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
Ben L. MCKENZIE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-17012.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
Ben L. McKenzie, Fresno, CA, pro se.
Mary Parnow, Esq., Sarah Ryan, Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ben L. McKenzie appeals the district court's summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's ("Commissioner") denial of his application for Title II Social Security disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's decision, and we review for substantial evidence and legal error the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The ALJ's findings that McKenzie's depression was not disabling were supported by substantial evidence. See id. To the extent the ALJ rejected or ascribed less weight to the controverted opinion of Dr. King, his reasoning was specific and legitimate. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.1989). To the extent the ALJ resolved ambiguous or conflicting medical evidence, his reasoning was also specific and legitimate. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.
xjhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.