Horton

MEMORANDUM ***

Ann Horton appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of social security disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment and uphold the ALJ’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The ALJ fully and fairly developed the record because the ALJ provided Horton with an opportunity to be meaningfully heard. See Boettcher v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 759 F.2d 719, 723 (9th Cir.1985). Furthermore, the ALJ allowed Horton the opportunity to furnish additional evidence to support her claims and Horton declined this opportunity. Consequently, Horton cannot show that the ALJ’s failure to probe specific points at the hearing resulted in unfairness or prejudice. Cf . Cruz v. Schweiker, 645 F.2d 812, 814 (9th Cir.1981).

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Horton is capable of performing her past relevant work as it is generally performed in the United States economy. See Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840,…