Langston

MEMORANDUM ***

Lavonne Langston (“Langston”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner on her appeal of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her application for social security benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. E.g., Moore v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002). The decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence and the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Id. Substantial evidence is more than a “mere scintilla,” but less than a preponderance. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir.2001). If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing the Secretary’s conclusion, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id.

Langston contends that the ALJ did not make the proper factual findings in support of his conclusion, at step four of the five-part sequential inquiry, that Langston was not disabled because she retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to…