Opinion
No. 16-917
05-08-2017
RONALD J. PRYOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
FOR APPELLANT: RONALD J. PRYOR, pro se, New York, NY. FOR APPELLEE: CANDACE SCOTT APPLETON (Varuni Nelson, Arthur Swerdloff, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Bridget M. Rohde, Acting United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
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 8th day of May, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. FOR APPELLANT: RONALD J. PRYOR, pro se, New York, NY. FOR APPELLEE: CANDACE SCOTT APPLETON (Varuni Nelson, Arthur Swerdloff, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Bridget M. Rohde, Acting United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Margo K. Brodie, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Ronald J. Pryor, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Brodie, J.) in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security. Pryor seeks review of the Commissioner's determination that Pryor made $15,922.54 in unreported earnings in 2008. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
We review de novo the District Court's judgment on the pleadings, and examine the entire administrative record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's determination and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard. Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 408 (2d Cir. 2010). For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we conclude that the Commissioner's determination was supported by substantial evidence. In a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), Pryor failed to credibly rebut the evidence offered by the Commissioner that documented his employment and earnings in 2008. The new evidence Pryor submitted to the Appeals Council "does not contradict the ALJ's finding." Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 1996). And the evidence submitted for the first time to the District Court and to this Court is either not material or duplicative of evidence already in the record. Remand is therefore not warranted. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Pollard v. Halter, 377 F.3d 183, 193 (2d Cir. 2004). Because a reasonable factfinder could find that Pryor earned $15,922.54 in wages in 2008 and would not "have to conclude otherwise," we accept the Commissioner's determination. Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted).
We have considered Pryor's remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court