Sposato v. Commissioner of Social Security

22-983-cv
Sposato v. Commissioner of Social Security
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 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 6th day of November, two thousand twenty-three.
PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
BETH ROBINSON,
Circuit Judges.
------------------------------------------------------------------
HEMWATIE S. SPOSATO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 22-983-cv
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR APPELLANT: Hemwatie S. Sposato, pro se,
North Syracuse, NY
1
FOR APPELLEE: Johanny Santana, Special
Assistant United States Attorney,
for Carla B. Freedman, United
States Attorney for the Northern
District of New York; Ellen
Sovern, Associate General
Counsel, Office of Program
Litigation, Baltimore, MD
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York (Glenn T. Suddaby, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Hemwatie S. Sposato, proceeding pro se, appeals the District
Court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to the Commissioner of Social
Security in connection with the denial of Sposato’s Social Security disability
insurance benefit claim. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to
explain our decision to affirm.
On appeal, Sposato’s sole argument is that the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) “did not review all [her] medical records that [she] submitted . . . and
missed two very crucial records that clearly state [her] medical condition of
2
Crohns diseaese [sic].” Appellant’s Br. 2. We reject that argument because the
ALJ in fact found that she had Crohn’s disease. R. 16 (“The claimant has the
following severe impairments: Crohn’s disease . . . .”).
In the proceedings before the District Court, Sposato argued that
substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s residual functional capacity
determination. She has not renewed that challenge on appeal, and we therefore
deem it abandoned and decline to revisit the ALJ’s determination. Although we
afford pro se litigants a degree of latitude, “we need not, and normally will not,
decide issues that a party fails to raise in his or her appellate brief.” Moates v.
Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 1998); Terry v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue,
826 F.3d 631, 632–33 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Although we accord filings from pro se
litigants a high degree of solicitude, even a litigant representing himself is
obliged to set out ‘identifiable arguments’ in his principal brief.”).
3
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is
AFFIRMED. 1
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to restrict remote access to the docket and
documents filed in this Social Security appeal pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure
5.2(c). See Fed. R. App. P. 25(5) (“An appeal in a case whose privacy protection was
governed by . . . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 . . . is governed by the same rule on
appeal.”).
4