
    Leah F. ZAPATA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-35199.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 11, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2009.
    
      Eitan Kassel Yanich, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Thomas M. Elsberry, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S., SSA — Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Brian Kipnis, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: BEEZER, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leah Zapata appeals from the district court’s order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Zapata’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits.

We review de novo a district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). We reverse the Commissioner’s decision if it is based on legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. Id. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We affirm the district court’s order. The facts of this ease are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

The Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not based on legal error. No medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with Zapata’s residual functioning capacity as determined at her disability hearing. We cannot second guess an ALJ’s credibility determination that is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir.1999)). Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s credibility determination.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     