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 *460 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.