Zeewe Dakar IMPALA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee, 477 F. App'x 856

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Zeewe Dakar Impala (“Impala”) appeals from the June 15, 2011 judgment of the District Court affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that Impala was not disabled and was therefore ineligible for supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of this case, and the issues on appeal.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), made applicable to SSI cases by 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), a court may set aside a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) only if it is based on legal error or its factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also, e.g., Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir.1998). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” and “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Burgess v.

Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 127 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, we conduct a de novo review of the administrative record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision and whether the correct legal standards have been applied. Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 408 (2d Cir.2010).

Under the Social Security Act, a “disability” is an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). To determine whether an individual is disabled, the Social Security Administration Commission created a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

In this case, Impala argues that (1) the ALJ failed to properly develop the record, and (2) the ALJ erred at step two of the five-step analysis when he determined that Impala did not have a severe impairment. Substantially for the reasons stated in the June 15, 2011 order of the District Court, we conclude that the ALJ’s determination that Impala did not have a severe impairment was made in accordance with the applicable legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the District Court’s judgment affirming the denial of Impala’s application for SSI benefits is affirmed.

CONCLUSION We have considered all of Impala’s other arguments on appeal and conclude that each of them is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.