Case Name: Nicki GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-20
Citations: 320 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 07-16741
Parties: Nicki GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Nicki GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-16741.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2009.
Filed March 20, 2009.
Andrew T. Koenig, Esquire, Attorney at Law, Ventura, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Shea Lita Bond, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Bobbie J. Montoya, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: McKEOWN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, Senior District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Donald E. Waller, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nicki Garland challenges the determination by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") that she is not eligible to receive disability benefits under the Social Security Act. We review de novo a district court's order affirming the decision of the ALJ on disability benefits. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.2001). The ALJ may be reversed only if his decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or based on legal error. Id. "Substantial evidence is defined as more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance." Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.1999)(internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ's conclusion must be upheld if the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005). The Magistrate Judge provided a thorough and thoughtful analysis in his review of the ALJ's disability determination, which the district court adopted. We find no error in the district court's decision.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.