22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4fd,MEMORANDUM Holly Wilson filed an application for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. She claimed that she was disabled due to depression, anxiety, and a traumatic head injury. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Wilson was not disabled because, if she refrained from drug and alcohol abuse, she could perform her past work as a production assembler. Accordingly, the ALJ denied Wilson benefits. The magistrate judge recommended affirming that decision, and the district court agreed essentially for the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge. After hearing oral argument and studying both the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that addressing each of the issues raised by Wilson on appeal would be duplicative of the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of these same, issues and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Because we agree with the discussion set forth in the magistrate judge’s 31-page Report and Recommendation and the district court’s 11-page Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation, we adopt that disposition as our own. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T52a,

MEMORANDUM

Holly Wilson filed an application for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. She claimed that she was disabled due to depression, anxiety, and a traumatic head injury. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Wilson was not disabled because, if she refrained from drug and alcohol abuse, she could perform her past work as a production assembler. Accordingly, the ALJ denied Wilson benefits. The magistrate judge recommended affirming that decision, and the district court agreed essentially for the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge.

After hearing oral argument and studying both the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that addressing each of the issues raised by Wilson on appeal would be duplicative of the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of these same, issues and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Because we agree with the discussion set forth in the magistrate judge’s 31-page Report and Recommendation and the district court’s 11-page Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation, we adopt that disposition as our own.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.