Dawn S. Newton v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAWN S. NEWTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-35723
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00226-RHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 3, 2014 **
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Dawn S. Newton appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
FILED
JAN 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant’s motion to
submit this appeal on the briefs is therefore denied as moot.

-- 1 of 2 --

Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the
district court’s order de novo, Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir.
1995), and the Commissioner’s factual findings for substantial evidence, id. at
1039. We affirm.
Newton contends that her credible testimony regarding her pain symptoms
and limitations establishes that she cannot sit or stand long enough to be able to
work. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) provided specific, clear and
convincing reasons for rejecting Newton’s subjective complaints. See Lingenfelter
v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (reciting standard of review);
Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996) (listing factors to consider in
evaluating credibility).
Newton also contends that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the medical
opinions regarding the presence of mental impairment. Substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions in determining that Newton
does not have a severe mental impairment. The ALJ properly evaluated the
medical opinions after “setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts
and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making
findings.” Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation
and quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --