13‐2168‐cv Harris v. Colvin UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

AMENDED 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.

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 7th day of April, two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, RICHARD K. EATON,* Judge. ______________________

DONALD HARRIS,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

‐v.‐ No. 13‐2168‐cv

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, in place of Michael Astrue,

Defendant‐Appellee.1

* The Honorable Judge Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as set forth above.

1 ______________________

FOR APPELLANT: JAYA SHURTLIFF, Stanley Law Offices, Syracuse , NY.

FOR APPELLEE: WILLIAM J. HOCHUL, JR., U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY; (Monika K. Crawford, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration, New York, NY; Stephen P. Conte, on the brief).

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of

New York (David G. Larimer, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Donald Harris appeals from the April 3, 2013 Decision and Order of the

United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.)

affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Harris

supplemental security income and social security disability insurance benefits.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural

history, and the issues for review.

In deciding an appeal from a denial of disability benefits, we conduct a

plenary review of the administrative record, focusing on the administrative

ruling rather than the district court’s opinion. Moran v. Astrue,

, 112

2 (2d Cir. 2009). We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine if the

correct legal standards have been applied and if the decision is supported by

substantial evidence. Burgess v. Astrue,

(2d Cir. 2008); see

(g).

We reject Harris’s argument that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)

who heard his case erred in his finding of Residual Functional Capacity. The ALJ

gave controlling weight to the opinion of Harris’s treating physicians, but

appropriately departed from the physician’s opinion where it concerned an issue

reserved for the Commissioner.

(d), (e)(1);

(d), (e)(1); Snell v. Apfel,

(2d Cir. 1999). We also reject

Harris’s argument that the ALJ erred by finding that his testimony about his pain

was not credible to the extent it was inconsistent with other evidence in the

record, as the ALJ properly gave specific reasons for his adverse credibility

finding, and those reasons were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

We see no grounds for disturbing the ALJ’s conclusion.

3 We have considered Harris’s remaining arguments and find they lack

merit. For the reasons given above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district

court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

4