Suzette Robinson v. Commissioner, Social Security ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 must contain the “appellant’s
contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the
authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies.” 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 opening brief does not comply with these
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
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. We conclude, therefore, Robinson has waived
appellate review. Accordingly, the order of the district court
is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
3