Teresamingo Gamble v. Commissioner of Social Securit

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Teresamingo M. Gamble. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11605

Date Filed: 04/18/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11605
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:14-cv-00846-AKK

TERESAMINGO M. GAMBLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 18, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11605

Date Filed: 04/18/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Teresamingo Gamble, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order
affirming the decision of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to deny her
application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security
income (“SSI”). After careful review, we affirm.
I.
Gamble applied for DIB and SSI on December 8, 2011. She said that she
suffered from a number of injuries and conditions that limited her ability to work,
including degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, prolapse of pelvic organs,
fibromyalgia, obesity, an earlier melanoma on her arm, post-traumatic stress
disorder, vision problems, and hypertension. On her application, Gamble claimed
she had been unable to work since August 3, 2010. On April 3, 2012, a disability
adjudicator denied her application after finding she was not disabled. Gamble
disagreed with this determination and requested an administrative hearing before
an ALJ.
The administrative hearing was held on March 5, 2013. Before the hearing
took place however, Gamble’s counsel withdrew after learning that Gamble had
worked in 2011 and received a worker’s compensation settlement that included a
representation to the court that she was not entitled to Social Security benefits at
that time in 2012. The ALJ advised Gamble that she should postpone the hearing
and hire new counsel, but Gamble refused. After reviewing Gamble’s medical
2

Case: 16-11605

Date Filed: 04/18/2017

Page: 3 of 3

records and hearing testimony from Gamble and a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined that Gamble was not disabled and denied her application for DBI and
SSI on May 3, 2013. The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s decision.
Gamble then appealed the decision to the district court, which affirmed. This
appeal followed.
II.
When the Appeals Council denies review of the ALJ’s decision, we review
the ALJ’s decision as the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision. Doughty
v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). We review de novo whether the
decision was supported by “substantial evidence.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d
1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
This Court liberally construes pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). However, “issues not briefed on appeal by
a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Id. Gamble’s brief hints at three possible
issues, but does not offer any argument to support them. Instead, it primarily
consists of copies of various documents from the record. Without more, our
precedent requires us to find these issues abandoned. See id.; Handy v. Cook, 476
F. App’x 844, 844–45 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (unpublished). Therefore, we
affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
3