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.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Khawar Maqsood, proceeding pro se, appeals from a July 31, 2013 judgment of the district court following a July 30, 2013 order (Gardephe, J.), which granted the defendant's motion under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment on the pleadings. The district court order adopted in full a January 27, 2012 report and recommendation (Katz, Mag. J.), which recommended that the district court grant the defendant's motion under Rule 12(c), deny Maqsood's motion for summary judgment, and dismiss his complaint with prejudice. Maqsood's complaint ultimately sought review of a February 13, 2009 decision by Administrative Law Judge Newton Greenberg declining to recalculate his disability insurance benefits, which became the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision when the Social Security Administration Appeals Council declined to review it on October 26, 2010. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court's decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings "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) (internal quotation marks omitted). The substantial evidence standard is "a very deferential standard of review—even more so than the `clearly erroneous' standard." Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam). "The substantial evidence standard means once an ALJ finds facts, we can reject those facts only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

An independent review of the record confirms that the district court properly granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Maqsood's complaint. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Katz in his thorough report and recommendation.

We have considered all of Maqsood's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.