June KITTLER, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee, 231 F. App'x 524

PER CURIAM. June Kittler appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Kittler alleged disability since January 2001 from dizziness, chest pain, and pain and numbness in her left arm. Following a second hearing upon an Appeals Council remand, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that

(1) Kittler’s medically determinable impairments—mild mitral valve click and soft systolic murmur, and possible ischemia in her legs—were severe, but not of listing-level severity; (2) her allegations and testimony about the nature and severity of her impairments were not entirely credible; (3) she had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a full range of light work; and (4) considering her age, education, work experience, and RFC, the Medical Vocational Guidelines directed a finding of not disabled. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the denial of benefits. See Gonzales v.

Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). Because the ALJ gave multiple valid reasons for finding Kittler’s subjective complaints not entirely credible, we defer to those credibility findings. See Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir.2005) (deference to ALJ’s credibility determination is warranted if it is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence). The ALJ’s RFC determination is also supported by the record. See Stormo v.

Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir.2004) (in determining RFC, ALJ should consider medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of limitations). Finally, Kittler has failed to provide evidence of bias. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir.2001) (quasi-judicial administrative officers, such as ALJs, are presumed to be unbiased, but presumption can be rebutted by showing conflict of interest or another specific reason to disqualify ALJ). Accordingly, we affirm. . The Honorable H.

David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).