Case Name: Baldwin TERCEIRA, as Administrator of the Estate of Mildred Terceira, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 223 F. App'x 38
Docket Number: No. 05-7014-cv.
Parties: Baldwin TERCEIRA, as Administrator of the Estate of Mildred Terceira, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 38–38

Head Matter:
Baldwin TERCEIRA, as Administrator of the Estate of Mildred Terceira, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-7014-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 18, 2007.
Lenore Dowis, Smithtown, NY, for Appellant.
Kathleen A. Mahoney, Assistant United States Attorney (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney; Varuni Nelson, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: THOMAS J. MESKILL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Baldwin Terceira, as Administrator of the Estate of Mildred Terceira, appeals from a judgment of the District Court granting defendant-appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) and upholding defendant-appellee's decision denying Mildred Terceira's application for disability benefits. We have carefully considered the parties' submissions to this Court and the record on appeal. For substantially the reasons stated in the District Court's careful and cogent decision, we conclude (1) that defendant-appellee's denial of disability benefits was free of legal error and was supported by substantial evidence, and (2) that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff-appellant's claims that defendant-appellee erred in not reopening earlier applications for benefits. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.