Case Name: Vinay K. GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-14
Citations: 360 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 08-3727-cv
Parties: Vinay K. GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 263–263

Head Matter:
Vinay K. GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-3727-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 14, 2010.
Vinay K. Gupta, pro se, Wappinger Falls, N.Y., for Appellant.
John E. Gura, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney (Sarah S. Normand, on the brief,) for Lev L. Dassin, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, for Appellee.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Vinay K. Gupta appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Francis, M.J.), which granted judgment on the pleadings to defendant-appellee Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
" 'On appeal, we conduct a plenary review of the administrative record to determine if there is substantial evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner's decision and if the correct legal standards have been applied.'" Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir.2008) (quoting Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir.2000)). Having reviewed Gupta's contentions on appeal, the record of the proceedings before Magistrate Judge Francis, and the administrative record, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the March 7, 2008 order and incorporated in the April 2, 2008, 2008 WL 925380, order. We find no merit in Gupta's arguments.
Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.