SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Doris J. Moore, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment granting the motion of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) for judgment on the pleadings in Moore’s action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s decision granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Desiano v. Warner-Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 2006). Doing so in this context requires us to examine the administrative record “to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard.” Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir. 2002). 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 citation and quotation marks omitted). In deciding whether sub *65 stantial evidence exists, we defer to the Commissioner’s resolution of conflicting evidence. Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998).

Here, for the reasons stated by the district court, the Commissioner’s decision was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence. Moore has identified no legal or factual error in the decisions of the district court or ALJ. Substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the ALJ’s determination. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.