O'Grady

MEMORANDUM **

Timothy O’Grady appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the decision of the Social Security Commissioner terminating his Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g) and 1383(c)(3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

First, O’Grady contends that there was no objective medical evidence that his Hodgkin’s disease was in remission. We review ©’Grady’s argument de novo under the substantial evidence rule. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d *805 1190, 1198 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the Commissioner’s denial of benefits must be affirmed when the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are based on correct legal standards). Because substantial medical evidence supported the ALJ’s finding, which was based on the correct legal standard, we affirm his conclusion that O’Grady’s Hodgkin’s lymphoma was in remission. See Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (concluding that the district court did not err in affirming denial of SSI benefits because substantial medical evidence supported a finding that the…