DENNIS JACOBS
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of September, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS ,
Chief Judge, ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges .
FOR APPELLANT: Charlene Jones, pro se Brooklyn, NY FOR APPELLEE: Arthur Swerdloff
Assistant United States Attorney,
United States Attorney's Office,
Eastern District of New York
Brooklyn, NY
Appeal from a judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Townes, J.) granting Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Charlene Jones, pro se, appeals the district court's grant of the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, upholding the denial of appellant's application for supplemental security income ("SSI"). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
We review de novo a district court's judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182, 184 (2d Cir. 2003). In reviewing the denial of SSI benefits by the Commissioner, we conduct a plenary review of the administrative record, see Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 500-01 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[O]ur focus is not so much on the district court's ruling as it is on the administrative ruling."). We may not set aside the Commissioner's decision unless the factual findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, or incorrect legal standards were applied. See, e.g., Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 127-28 (2d Cir. 2008). A determination is supported by substantial evidence if the record contains "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)(internal quotation marks omitted).
Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court's order for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK