step two. Def.’s Mot. at 9. The District of Columbia Circuit has not directly addressed to what extent an ALJ must , 577 (6th Cir.2009) (finding that “when an ALJ considers all of a claimant’s impairments in the remaining steps of the disability determination, an ALJ’s failure to find additional severe impairments at step two does not constitute reversible error”) (citation omitted). Here, as in Nejat and Maziarz, the ALJ concluded that T.J. satisfied the requirements of step two and continued to the next step. Similarly, a member of this Court recently found that failure to consider evidence at one stage of the administrative process is not an error when the evidence is properly considered at a later stage of the process. See Blackmon, 719 F.Supp.2d at 91-92, 2010 WL 2607215, at *11 (<HOLDING>). Because the ALJ proceeded to step three,
holding that prosecutorial error does not warrant reversal unless substantial prejudice results holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that the court need not determine whether the aljs finding of nonseverity as to the plaintiffs depression neuropathy and borderline intellect was legal error as any alleged error at step two did not prejudice plaintiff and therefore does not require reversal holding that even if the district court had erred by not allowing the plaintiff leave to file a reply brief any error was harmless because it did not prejudice the plaintiffs rights holding to warrant reversal the appellant must show both the error of the ruling and resulting prejudice