Case Name: Cynthia BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-11
Citations: 599 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 13-4812
Parties: Cynthia BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
Cynthia BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-4812.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 11, 2015.
Cynthia Butler, pro se, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Susan C. Branagan, Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
FORREST, J.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of March, two thousand fifteen.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Cynthia Butler, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's November 13, 2013 judgment dismissing her complaint, which sought review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her application for disability insurance benefits. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review a district court's judgment on the pleadings de novo. Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182, 184 (2d Cir.2003). When reviewing a benefits determination by the Commissioner, "our focus is not so much on the district court's ruling as it is on the administrative ruling." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we "review the administrative record de novo to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's decision and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard." Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir.2002). The substantial evidence standard is "a very deferential standard of review — even more so than the 'clearly erroneous' standard." Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir.2012). "The substantial evidence standard means once an ALJ finds facts, we can reject those facts only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude other wise. " Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and. dismissed Butler's complaint. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough November 8, 2013 order.
We have considered all of Butler's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.