
    Amy Lou FINNEGAN-CREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-16755.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 14, 2016.
    
    Filed April 18, 2016.
    Amy Lou Finnegan Crews, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
    
      Michael A. Johns, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, Marc Thayne Warner, Esquire, Assistant Regional Counsel, Jennifer Randall, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: Pregerson, Leavy, and Owens, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amy Lou Finnegan-Crews appeals pro se the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the district court’s decision de novo. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir.2014). We affirm.

Finnegan-Crews waived her contention regarding a disabling hip injury by failing to raise it before the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) or the district court. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973-74 (9th Cir.2006).

Finnegan-Crews contends that she established disability due to her mental condition, but she does not explain how the ALJ erred. The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for giving “very little weight” to the contradicted opinion of Dr. Hilda S. Amato, a treating physician. See Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1160-61; Batson v. Comm’r of Soc., Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.2004). The ALJ conducted the required two-step analysis and provided multiple specific, clear and convincing reasons for finding that Finnegan-Crews’s testimony and other statements were not fully credible. See Rounds v. Comm’r Soc., Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir.2015) (stating that ALJ may consider ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation and observations of treating physicians regarding claimant’s symptoms); Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc., Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir.2014) (stating that ALJ must specifically identify the testimony he finds not to be credible and explain what evidence undermines the testimony); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir.2012) (upholding credibility finding where testimony contradicted by medical evidence that claimant’s anxiety disorder was well-controlled with medication and other self-calming measures).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Finnegan-Crews’s motion to supplement the record is denied.
     