
    Antonio T. POTTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John P. COSTELLO, Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-4876-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 18, 2012.
    Antonio T. Potter, Rochester, NY, pro se.
    Elizabeth D. Rothstein, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Ann Sloan, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Office of the General Counsel for the Social Security Administration, for William J. Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Antonio T. Potter, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s (Larimer, J.) November 1, 2010, judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) in Potter’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 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 quotation marks omitted).

Here, because Potter did not oppose or otherwise respond to the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, we will not consider the arguments in his brief for the first time on appeal. See Bogle-Assegai v. Connecticut, 470 F.3d 498, 504 (2d Cir.2006). Moreover, even if we were to exercise our discretion to consider Potter’s arguments, see id., we would determine that, for the reasons stated by the district court, the Commissioner’s decision was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence.

We have considered Appellant’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  