
    Martin Lee BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-15046
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 13, 2016  San Francisco, California
    Filed December 15, 2016
    Lawrence David Rohlfing, Attorney, Denise Bourgeois Haley, Law Offices of Lawrence Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Jeffrey James Lodge, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, Tova D. Wolking, Assistant Regional Counsel, Elizabeth Firer, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brooks appeals the denial of his social security disability benefits. We affirm.

1. Brooks contends that the ALJ erred by not specifically mentioning the check-box notations from one of his treating physicians. The ALJ “may ‘permissibly reject[ ] ... check-off reports that [do] not contain any explanation of the bases of their conclusions.’ ” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). But even if we assume that the ALJ erred, any error was harmless. See Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 2015); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111, 1115.

2. Brooks contends that the ALJ erred by not providing adequate reasons for giving diminished weight to his treating physician’s opinions. The ALJ gave several good reasons for her determination that this physician’s opinions should be afforded less weight. Thus, the ALJ did not err. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2) (explaining that an ALJ may consider the length and extent of treatment in weighing a treating physician’s medical opinion).

3.Brooks contends that the ALJ erred by not adopting his work limitations as set forth by two physicians. However, the ALJ has substantial discretion in making this determination and in resolving conflicts among medical opinions. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Because there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination, the ALJ did not err. See Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995).

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