
    Caryn TALYOSEF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    
    16-200
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 20, 2017
    
      FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Car-yn Talyosef, pro se, Norwich, Connecticut.
    FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Jason Valencia (with Sandra S. Glover on the brief), for Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut.
    PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judges, LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Commissioner of Social Security Nancy A. Berryhill is automatically substituted for former Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as Defendant-Appellee.
    
    
      
       Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Caryn Talyosef, pro se, appeals the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

When, as here, the district court upholds a benefits determination by the Commissioner, we conduct a de novo review of the administrative record “to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard.” Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 408 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir. 2002)). The substantial evidence standard means that “once an ALJ finds facts, we can reject those facts only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude other-ivise.” Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court and the magistrate judge. The Commissioner’s ruling is supported by substantial evidence. Appellant’s testimony, medical records, and the opinion of the treating physician, support the Commissioner’s finding that Appellant could return to light work and was therefore not disabled. See id.; Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013).

We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find no reason for reversal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment, of the district court.  