district court’s judgment. Because the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was supported by the medical evidence and was consistent with the conclusions of Cole’s treating doctors, there was no need to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the treating doctor’s opinions. See Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1223 (9th Cir.2010) (noting that “the ALJ need not provide ‘clear and convincing reasons’ for rejecting [a doctor’s report]” where the ALJ did not reject the doctor’s opinions). Because Cole does not point to any conflicting medical evidence, the ALJ’s finding that Cole was not disabled due to his visual impairments was reasonably supported by the objective medical evidence. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Based on Cole’s daily
recognizing that we may not substitute our judgment for that of the alj  holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation  recognizing a subsequent agency action as a valid ratification and indicating that the court will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency recognizing that the government may seek a personal judgment specific property or substitute property holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency