Bubion

MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiff-Appellant Diane S. Bubion appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate’s findings and recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s final decision that Bubion was not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act and hence not eligible for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits. We affirm.

We review the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security benefits de novo. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2000). The Commissioner’s decision must be supported by substantial evidence and the Commissioner must have applied the correct legal standards. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.2001). Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we do not recount them here. Bubion raises four issues on appeal, which we discuss in order.

1. Treating and Examining Physicians’ Opinions

Bubion argues in exquisite detail that the ALJ ignored, did not give appropriate weight to, or rejected the opinions of her treating and examining physicians. To the contrary, the ALJ’s 15-page single-spaced decision explicitly discussed — and incorporated into…