Wichterman

MEMORANDUM ***

John Wichterman appeals pro se from the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34 , 1381-1383f. 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). We will affirm the decision of the Commissioner if it is supported by substantial evidence and the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) provided specific, legitimate reasons for disregarding the opinions of Drs. McRae, Bot, and Toews. These reasons include the facts that the doctors’ reports were inconsistent with each other, depended in part on Wichterman’s non-credible self-reporting, and were contradicted by the opinion of Dr. McKnight, who examined Wichterman and conducted a longitudinal review of his medical history. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir.1995) (ALJ…