
    Calvin O. TAI-FATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-4742-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2013.
    Calvin O. Tai-Fatt, Rye, NY, pro se.
    Caleb Hayes-Deats (Sarah Sheive Normand, Susan Colleen Branagan, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to conform with the listing of the parties above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Calvin O. Tai-Fatt, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Commission of Social Security denying his application for social security disability benefits, for failure to establish disability during the coverage period. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review district court orders granting motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) de novo. Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182, 184 (2d Cir.2003). When reviewing determinations made by the Commissioner, we conduct a “plenary review of the administrative record.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 500-01 (2d Cir.1998) (noting focus of review is the administrative ruling, not the district court’s decision). We may set aside the Commissioner’s decision only if the factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or if incorrect legal standards were applied. See Burgess, 537 F.3d at 127; Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir.2004). “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 127 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, an independent review of the administrative record and case law reveals that, for reasons stated by the district court, the administrative law judge’s decision was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence, and thus, the district court properly granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its October 1, 2012 opinion.

We have considered all of Tai-Fatt’s arguments and find them to be without merit. We have also considered Tai-Fatt’s motion for leave to expand the record, which is DENIED. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  