
    Lori LECLAIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16204.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 2014.
    Filed Oct. 17, 2014.
    Willie Jordan-Curtis, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Lori LeClair, Star Valley, AZ, pro se.
    Daniel E. Burrows, Special Assistant U.S., SSA-Social Security Administration General Counsel’s Office, Region VIII, Denver, CO, Michael A. Johns, USPX-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Lori LeClair appeals the district court’s order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her Social Security disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to support his decision to give little weight to the treating physician’s opinion. Dr. Easton’s medical assessment did not cite objective evidence supporting the limitations imposed. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002). Moreover, the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s determination that LeClair’s condition improved following her hip replacement surgeries. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Finally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Easton based her assessment on LeClair’s subjective complaints. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.2008).

The ALJ properly provided the vocational expert with LeClair’s limitations and restrictions based on the entirety of the evidence in the record. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir.1999); Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir.1988).

The district court did not err in affirming the denial of benefits.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     