1

08-3727-cv Gupta v. Commissioner of Social Security



### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



# SUM MARY O RDE R

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT
. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON O RA F T ER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE P ROCEDURE 32.1 AN D THIS COURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PAR TY 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
.



### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

### 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 14 day of January, two thousand ten. th 

### 5 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

### 6 7 Chief Judge, 

### 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 

### 9 PETER W. HALL, 

### 10 Circuit Judges. 

### 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X VINAY K. GUPTA, 

### 13 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### 15 16

-v.- 08-3727-cv 

### 17 18 19 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

### 20 21 Defendant-Appellee. 

### 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 23 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: VINAY K. GUPTA, pro se, 

### 24 Wappinger Falls, N.Y. 

### 25 262 

### 1 APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: JOHN E. GURA, JR., Assistant 

### 2 United States Attorney (Sarah S. 

### 3 Normand, on the brief,) for LEV 

### 4 L. DASSIN, Acting United States 

### 5 Attorney for the Southern 

### 6 District of New York. 

### 7 8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 

### 9 Court for the Southern District of New York (Francis, M.J.). 

### 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

### 12 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 

### 13 AFFIRMED

. 

### 14 15 Plaintiff-appellant Vinay K. Gupta appeals from a final 

### 16 judgment of the United States District Court for the 

### 17 Southern District of New York (Francis, M.J.), which granted 

### 18 judgment on the pleadings to defendant-appellee Commissioner 

### 19 of Social Security (“Commissioner”). We assume the parties’ 

### 20 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 

### 21 history, and the issues presented for review. 

### 22 23 “‘On appeal, we conduct a plenary review of the 

### 24 administrative record to determine if there is substantial 

### 25 evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the 

### 26 Commissioner’s decision and if the correct legal standards 

### 27 have been applied.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 

### 28 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 

### 29 (2d Cir. 2000)). Having reviewed Gupta’s contentions on 

### 30 appeal, the record of the proceedings before Magistrate 

### 31 Judge Francis, and the administrative record, we affirm for 

### 32 substantially the reasons stated in the March 7, 2008 order 

### 33 and incorporated in the April 2, 2008 order. We find no 

### 34 merit in Gupta’s arguments. 

### 35 36 Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the 

### 37 district court. 

### 38 39 FOR THE COURT: 

### 40 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 41 42 43 By:___________________________