Suzette Robinson v. Commissioner, Social Security

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-03298-SAG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999427969]. Mailed to: S. Robinson. [14-1268]

Appeal: 14-1268

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/03/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1268

SUZETTE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate
Judge. (1:10-cv-03298-SAG)

Submitted:

August 18, 2014

Decided:

September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Suzette Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Alex Gordon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1268

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/03/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Suzette Robinson appeals the magistrate judge’s order
denying relief on her complaint for review of the Commissioner’s
denial

of

supplemental

security

income.

On

appeal

and

proceeding pro se, Robinson submitted an informal brief pursuant
to Fourth Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

In her informal brief,

Robinson merely lists her conditions, her medications, and her
medical

and

treatment

history.

She

does

not

present

any

argument that the magistrate judge committed error by affirming
the ALJ’s determination.

Having provided no argument and merely

presenting lists of conditions, medications, and treatments as
issues on appeal, we find Robinson’s informal brief fails to
comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and our
local rules.

Robinson has, therefore, waived appellate review

of the issues she has attempted to raise.
An

opening

brief

contentions

and

the

authorities

and

parts

relies.”

reasons
of

must
for

the

contain

them,

record

with
on

the

“appellant’s

citations

which

the

to

the

appellant

Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see also 4th Cir. R.

34(b) (noting an informal brief shall list “the specific issues
and supporting facts and arguments raised on appeal”).

If an

appellant’s

these

opening

brief

does

not

comply

with

requirements with regard to an issue, he or she waives appellate
review of that issue.

See, e.g., Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson,
2

Appeal: 14-1268

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/03/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting single conclusory
remark regarding error “is insufficient to raise on appeal any
merits-based challenge to the district court’s ruling”); Edwards
v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)
(“Failure to comply with the specific dictates of [Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A)] with respect to a particular
claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”).
Because Robinson’s brief does not present any argument
that the magistrate judge erred and is a mere recitation of
conditions, medications, and procedures, her brief does not meet
these requirements.
appellate review.

We conclude, therefore, Robinson has waived
Accordingly, the order of the district court

is affirmed.
AFFIRMED

3