Tomblin v. Barnhart , 141 F. App'x 181 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-2407
    DEWEY TOMBLIN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
    Security,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Huntington.  Robert C. Chambers,
    District Judge. (CA-03-286-3)
    Submitted:   August 3, 2005                 Decided:   August 18, 2005
    Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dewey Tomblin, Appellant Pro Se. Roxanne Andrews, SOCIAL SECURITY
    ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Dewey   Tomblin   appeals       the   district    court’s   order
    affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny
    him Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income
    benefits.   On appeal, Tomblin asserts that he was denied the right
    to counsel before the administrative law judge.              Although Tomblin
    was represented by counsel in the district court, he did not raise
    this issue either before the administrative forum or the lower
    court.
    It is well-settled law that issues raised for the first
    time on appeal generally are not considered by this court.                   See
    Muth v. United States, 
    1 F.3d 246
    , 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding
    that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally
    waived absent exceptional circumstances); Pleasant Valley Hosp.,
    Inc.   v.   Shalala,   
    32 F.3d 67
    ,   70   (4th   Cir.     1994)   (“it    is
    inappropriate for courts reviewing appeals of agency decisions to
    consider arguments not raised before the administrative agency
    involved”).     Here, Tomblin submitted a counseled brief in the
    district court that did not raise this issue.                Accordingly, we
    conclude that Tomblin has waived this claim.           We therefore affirm
    the district court’s order.        Tomblin v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-286-3
    (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 30, 2004).            We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    - 2 -
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2407

Citation Numbers: 141 F. App'x 181

Judges: Williams, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/18/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024