Maupin

MEMORANDUM ***

Brenda J. Maupin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir.2004). The Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed if it is based on the correct legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

Contrary to Maupin’s contention, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) properly considered the report of Dr. Flaxel. Although Dr. Flaxel did not sign one of his reports, he expressly authenticated his medical records during his testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404 .1519n(e); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005) (“A decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for errors that are harmless.”).

Contrary to Maupin’s contentions, the ALJ’s recent adverse credibility determination is supported by the same substantial…