Case: 19-12280 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12280
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-03066-RWS
REGINA BATTLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 12, 2019)
Before ROSENBAUM, HULL, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12280 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Regina Battle, a pro se claimant, appeals the district court’s order affirming
the Commissioner’s denial of her application for supplemental security income.
We review a Social Security case to determine whether the Commissioner’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence, but we review de novo whether the
correct legal standards were applied. Moore v. Barnhart,
405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th
Cir. 2005). We read “briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally . . . [but] issues not
briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). “Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, without
supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be
waived.” N.L.R.B. v. McClain of Ga. , Inc.,
138 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir. 1998).
“[T]his court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district
court.” Stewart v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs.,
26 F.3d 115, 115 (11th Cir.
1994).
Here, Battle submitted a three-page brief listing three issues: (1) the district
court failed to “recognize facts/statements” made by the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”); (2) the district court did not allow for a reasonable time to receive her
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; and (3) “[t]he
Commissioner failed to address facts in the case.” Battle’s argument section
includes only a conclusory request that this Court “reconsider the past
decision/dismissal” because she has not worked in ten years, and the Social Security
2
Case: 19-12280 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 3 of 3
Administration allegedly failed to follow the required five-step decision process.
Battle also provides a conclusion section in which she argues that Nancy Berryhill,
the acting Commissioner, “has a known reputation . . . to go to great lengths to deny
SSI . . . benefits to the deserved and obviously disabled.”
We must conclude that Battle abandoned her arguments on appeal because
she failed to provide any legal authority, citations to the record, or substantive
arguments in her brief. See Timson,
518 F.3d at 874. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3
