Case Information
*1 ‐ Comm’r UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 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 FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At term Second Circuit, held at Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Foley Square, City th day May, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT:
JOHN WALKER, JR.,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
RAYMOND LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
RONALD PRYOR,
Plaintiff ‐ Appellant No. ‐
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant ‐ Appellee .
_____________________________________ *2 FOR APPELLANT: R ONALD P RYOR pro se , New York, NY. APPELLEE: C ANDACE S COTT PPLETON (Varuni Nelson, Arthur Swerdloff, on brief ), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Bridget Rohde, Acting Attorney, Eastern District of New Brooklyn, NY. Appeal from judgment of District Court Eastern District of York (Margo K. Brodie, ).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED judgment of District
Ronald Pryor, proceeding pro se, appeals from judgment (Brodie, J.) favor Social Security. seeks review made unreported We assume parties’ familiarity with facts record prior proceedings, which refer only as necessary explain our decision affirm. review de novo Court’s pleadings,
examine entire administrative record determine *3 evidence supports the Commissioner’s determination and the Commissioner applied correct legal standard. Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 408 (2d Cir. 2010). substantially reasons by Court, we conclude that Commissioner’s was supported by evidence. In hearing before Administrative Law (“ALJ”), Pryor failed to credibly rebut evidence offered by documented his employment and in The new evidence submitted Council “does not contradict ALJ’s finding.” Perez v. Chater, F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 1996). And evidence submitted first time this either not material or duplicative evidence already record. Remand therefore not warranted. See U.S.C. § 405(g); Pollard Halter, F.3d 183, (2d Cir. 2004). Because reasonable factfinder could find earned wages would not “have otherwise,” accept determination. Brault Admin., F.3d (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted).
1 have considered Pryor’s remaining arguments they 2 are without merit. foregoing reasons, 3
4 COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk