Case ID: f-appx_349/html/0578-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jeanette C. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. (Martin v. Astrue)
    No. 08-6227-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 16, 2009.
    
      Maria Fragassi Santangelo, Special Assistant United States Attorney (Andrew T. Baxter, Interim United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Stephen P. Conte, Acting Regional Chief Counsel-Region II, Office of General Counsel, Social Security Administration, on the brief) New York, NY, for Appellee.
    Jaya A. Shurtliff, Olinsky & Shurtliff LLP, Syracuse, NY, for Appellant.
    PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the listing of the parties stated above in the abbreviated caption.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Edward R. Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Jeanette C. Martin (“plaintiff’ or “Martin”) appeals from the October 30, 2008 judgment of the District Court denying plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing plaintiffs complaint, and affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying plaintiffs application for disability benefits. On appeal plaintiff argues (1) that the District Court erred in concluding that the vocational expert’s testimony before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) constituted substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s finding that Martin could perform certain jobs and (2) that District Court erred in upholding the ALJ’s reliance on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to conclude that plaintiff was not disabled. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

We have reviewed each of plaintiff’s claims and find them to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Peebles in his careful and thoughtful report and recommendation of May 28, 2008, see Martin v. Astrue, 06-CV-0720 (N.D.N.Y. May 28, 2008), which the District Court adopted, see Martin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 06-CV-0720 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008), the October 30, 2008 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.