Nigel Ray Lachey v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIGEL RAY LACHEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security; UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF
NEVADA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-17095
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01438-BNW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Brenda Weksler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 19, 2023**
Before: D. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
Nigel Ray Lachey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application
for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-17095
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review the
district court’s decision de novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir.
2016), and we affirm.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Lachey did not meet
or equal listing 12.04 at step three of his analysis. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,
App. 1, §§ 12.00(A)(2), 12.04. The ALJ correctly found (1) that Lachey neither
had an extreme limitation in one area of mental functioning nor had marked
limitations in two areas of mental functioning, see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,
App. 1, § 12.00(A)(2)(b), and (2) that Lachey did not demonstrate that he only
marginally adjusted the requirements of daily life despite ongoing treatment, see
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(G)(2). We do not reach Lachey’s
assertion that he meets other unspecified listings. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533
F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (declining to reach issues that are not argued
“with any specificity”).
The ALJ also did not err by failing to develop the record, where the record
does not indicate that Lachey’s juvenile records were relevant or that an additional
consultative examination was necessary. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(b)(1)
(establishing that the agency must develop the medical record only for the year
preceding a claim “unless there is a reason to believe that development of an
earlier period is necessary”); Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-17095
2001) (“An ALJ’s duty to develop the record further is triggered only when there is
ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper
evaluation of the evidence.”).
To the extent that Lachey contends the ALJ did not allow him to review
exhibits, prevented him from raising issues and presenting witnesses, improperly
weighed medical opinions, and failed to consider evidence, we reject the
contentions as unsupported by the record.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --