Gary Arago v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Gary Arago appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The district court determined that the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) findings that Arago was not disabled and that he was not entitled to disability insurance or supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits were supported by substantial evidence.

We have jurisdiction to review this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s order affirming the denial of social security benefits. See, e.g., Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2004). A decision by the Commissioner of Social Security will be affirmed as long as it is supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); see also Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 , 1214 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm the district court, which held that the ALJ relied on substantial evidence in denying Arago’s claims for disability benefits and SSI benefits.

The ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation process required under the federal regulations. See Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir.2003). Relevant here, the ALJ relied on…