ORDER

DOUGLAS L. RAYES, District Judge.

Plaintiff appeals the denial of her applications for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and Supplemental Security Income, in which she alleged that she became disabled as of October 1, 2009. After following the five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled because she retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform medium work (with some exceptions), and jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform in light of her RFC, age, education, and work experience. (A.R. 15-25.)

When considering an appeal from the denial of an application for disability insurance benefits, the Court's review is limited. The Court cannot "manufacture arguments" for Plaintiff, nor can it "consider any claims that were not actually argued in [Plaintiff's] opening brief." Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court "review[s] only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief." Id. Moreover, the Court is not free to consider Plaintiff's disability applications anew or to otherwise determine whether she is disabled. Instead, the Court is limited to reviewing the ALJ's decision to determine whether it "contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence." Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance, and "such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. Stated differently, if the ALJ follows the correct legal standards and supports his decision with a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, the Court cannot reverse his decision simply because it would weigh the evidence differently.

After reviewing Plaintiff's opening brief (Doc. 20), the Court finds that Plaintiff has raised no specific objections to the ALJ's decision. Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ's weighing of the evidence and asks the Court to find that she is "disabled enough to received social security benefits." (Doc. 20 at 2.) But Plaintiff does not identify any legal errors in the ALJ's decision, nor does she explain how the ALJ's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case and enter judgment.