Biggs

MEMORANDUM **

Barbara Biggs appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits. “We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.” Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2004)). “A decision to deny benefits will only be disturbed if it is not supported by ‘substantial evidence or it is based on legal error.’ ” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1989)). The district court exercised jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The facts of this case are known to the parties and we, do not repeat them here.

Contrary to Biggs’ assertions, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) fully developed the administrative record by including all of Biggs’ medical records between the date of her alleged disability and the date her disability insurance expired. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir.2001); Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.1999).…