Court Opinion

ID: 9895231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 16:00:45.99519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:48.623412
License: Public Domain

22-983-cv
Sposato v. Commissioner of Social Security

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                       SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS
PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE
(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A
SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

      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 6th day of November, two thousand twenty-three.

       PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
                        WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
                        BETH ROBINSON,
                                Circuit Judges.
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
       HEMWATIE S. SPOSATO,

                       Plaintiff-Appellant,

                               v.                                            No. 22-983-cv

       COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                        Defendant-Appellee.
       ------------------------------------------------------------------

       FOR APPELLANT:                                        Hemwatie S. Sposato, pro se,
                                                             North Syracuse, NY

                                                    1
      FOR APPELLEE:                             Johanny Santana, Special
                                                Assistant United States Attorney,
                                                for Carla B. Freedman, United
                                                States Attorney for the Northern
                                                District of New York; Ellen
                                                Sovern, Associate General
                                                Counsel, Office of Program
                                                Litigation, Baltimore, MD

      Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of New York (Glenn T. Suddaby, Judge).

      UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

      Appellant Hemwatie S. Sposato, proceeding pro se, appeals the District

Court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to the Commissioner of Social

Security in connection with the denial of Sposato’s Social Security disability

insurance benefit claim. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying

facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to

explain our decision to affirm.

      On appeal, Sposato’s sole argument is that the Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) “did not review all [her] medical records that [she] submitted . . . and

missed two very crucial records that clearly state [her] medical condition of

                                         2
Crohns diseaese [sic].” Appellant’s Br. 2. We reject that argument because the

ALJ in fact found that she had Crohn’s disease. R. 16 (“The claimant has the

following severe impairments: Crohn’s disease . . . .”).

      In the proceedings before the District Court, Sposato argued that

substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s residual functional capacity

determination. She has not renewed that challenge on appeal, and we therefore

deem it abandoned and decline to revisit the ALJ’s determination. Although we

afford pro se litigants a degree of latitude, “we need not, and normally will not,

decide issues that a party fails to raise in his or her appellate brief.” Moates v.

Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 1998); Terry v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue,

826 F.3d 631, 632–33 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Although we accord filings from pro se

litigants a high degree of solicitude, even a litigant representing himself is

obliged to set out ‘identifiable arguments’ in his principal brief.”).

                                           3
       For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED. 1

                                          FOR THE COURT:
                                          Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to restrict remote access to the docket and
documents filed in this Social Security appeal pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure
5.2(c). See Fed. R. App. P. 25(5) (“An appeal in a case whose privacy protection was
governed by . . . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 . . . is governed by the same rule on
appeal.”).
                                              4