Delgado v. Apfel

Full title: Angelo Manuel DELGADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 21, 2001

4 F. App'x 443 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

4 Fed.Appx. 443 (9th Cir. 2001) Angelo Manuel DELGADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-17423. D.C. No. CV-98-1014-DFL. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 21, 2001

Submitted February 12, 2001. ¹

1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Claimant sought review of decision of Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying of claimant's application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, David F. Levi, J., granted Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, and claimant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) claimant's sweeping conclusory allegations were insufficient to prevent summary judgment, and (2) Commissioner's actions did not give rise to a claim for mental anguish and emotional distress.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding.

Page 444.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Angelo Manuel Delgado appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") in his denial of Delgado's application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits under Title XVI of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-83f. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's decision to uphold the Commissioner's denial of benefits. See Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.1998). The Commissioner's findings may be set aside if they are based on legal error or are unsupported by substantial evidence. See id. We affirm.

On appeal, as he did in the district court, Delgado fails to challenge the substantial evidence supporting the Administrative Law Judge's decision. "Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent summary judgment." Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir.1986)).

In addition, the Commissioner's actions do not give rise to Delgado's claim to be compensated for mental anguish and emotional distress. See Hooker v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 858 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir.1988) (barring claims for damages allegedly caused by denial of benefits).

AFFIRMED.