Stamper v. Kijakazi ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30355 Document: 00516936747 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 23-30355 October 19, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
Tiffany Latres’ Stamper, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:21-CV-460
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Tiffany Latres’ Stamper applied for social security disability benefits.
An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied the application, and a
magistrate judge recommended dismissing her subsequent challenge. The
district court agreed and affirmed. We affirm as well.
When reviewing a “final decision” of the Commissioner, we ask if the
decision was “supported by substantial evidence” and if “the Commissioner
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30355 Document: 00516936747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2023
No. 23-30355
used the proper legal standards to evaluate the evidence.” Kneeland v.
Berryhill, 850 F.3d 749, 753 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). This standard
is “exceedingly deferential.” Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir.
2012). It is even more deferential when, as here, the plaintiff fails to object
to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. In such cases, we will
only reverse if there is plain error. See Sneed v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 50
F.4th 483, 490 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). An error is plain if it is
“clear or obvious” and “affects [a plaintiff’s] substantial rights.” Baisden v.
I’m Ready Prods., Inc., 693 F.3d 491, 506 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Puckett v.
United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)).
Stamper cannot show any error, let alone clear error. To begin, she
argues that the ALJ failed to consider the proper disability onset date. But he
did. And that determination is supported by substantial evidence, including
Stamper’s admission that the onset date was 2018 and documents indicating
that she was earning wages before that date.
Stamper also points to the statement of a vocational expert declaring
her to be disabled. Yet that testimony was responding to a hypothetical
question posed by the ALJ. We have explained that “[w]hen hypothetical
testimony by a vocational expert is unsupported by the evidence, the ALJ
may properly disregard that testimony.” Jenkins v. Astrue, 250 F. App’x 645,
647 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). That is what happened here.
Stamper’s remaining claims either lack merit or are waived. For
instance, Stamper raises vague, conclusory allegations of constitutional and
civil rights violations and judicial misconduct. Because she never raised these
issues before the district court, we decline to address them. See Castillo v.
Barnhart, 325 F.3d 550, 552 (5th Cir. 2003). Stamper also contends that
there were inaccuracies in the administrative record and in the ALJ’s
decision, but she does not explain what those inaccuracies were. Her failure
2
Case: 23-30355 Document: 00516936747 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2023
No. 23-30355
to “adequately [] brief” this issue “constitutes waiver of that argument.”
Proctor & Gamble v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004); see
also United States v. Fernandez, 48 F.4th 405, 412 (5th Cir. 2022). And, while
Stamper contends that certain exhibits submitted by her attorney were
improperly excluded, the record shows the ALJ permitted her attorney to
submit those exhibits and even referenced some of them in the decision
denying her relief.
AFFIRMED.
3