12-2432-cv
Jones-Reid v. Astrue
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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 22nd day of March, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
9
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12
13
14 SANDRA JONES-REID,
15
16 Plaintiff-Appellant,
17
18 -v.- 12-2432-cv
19
20 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER
21 OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
22
23 Defendant-Appellee.
24
25
26 FOR APPELLANT: WINONA W. ZIMBERLIN, Hartford, CT.
27
28 FOR APPELLEE: ANN M. NEVINS, Assistant United States
29 Attorney (Robert M. Spector, Assistant
30 United States Attorney, on the brief),
31 for David B. Fein, United States Attorney
32 for the District of Connecticut, New
33 Haven, CT.
1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the
2 District of Connecticut (Eginton, J.).
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
6 AFFIRMED.
7 Plaintiff-Appellant Sandra Jones-Reid appeals from the
8 judgment of the United States District Court for the
9 District of Connecticut (Eginton, J.) affirming the denial
10 of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and
11 Supplemental Security Income. We assume the parties’
12 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
13 history, and the issues presented for review.
14 After reviewing the record, we conclude that
15 substantial evidence supports the vocational analysis and
16 the conclusion that Jones-Reid is able to perform light
17 work, see 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), with the
18 restrictions imposed. See Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117,
19 128 (2d Cir. 2008). Additionally, we find no merit to
20 Jones-Reid’s claims that the ALJ improperly weighed the
21 relevant medical opinions or made erroneous credibility
22 determinations.
23
24
2
1 We have considered all of Jones-Reid’s arguments on
2 appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing
3 reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby
4 AFFIRMED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
3