Bell v. Social Security Administration, Court of Appeals

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 20, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
SHARON D. BELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 17-6005
(D.C. No. 5:16-CV-01480-F)
SOCIAL SECURITY (W.D. Okla.)
ADMINISTRATION, COURT OF
APPEALS (ALJ),
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied Sharon D.
Bell’s application for social security benefits. We know little about the history of
this case because the record on appeal is sparse. But it appears Ms. Bell tried to
challenge the Commissioner’s denial of benefits by filing a blank, unsigned
complaint in federal district court. On December 30, 2016, the district court
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
dismissed the case without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), citing Ms. Bell’s
failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).1 We affirm.
Ms. Bell appears pro se, so we liberally construe her filings. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1201 n.2 (10th Cir.
2010). We cannot, however, serve as her attorney by “constructing arguments and
searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840
(10th Cir. 2005).
Even under this standard, Ms. Bell’s opening brief falls short. “The first task
of an appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.”
Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015). When “[t]he
argument section of [the] opening brief does not challenge the [district] court’s
reasoning on [a] point[, w]e . . . do not address the matter.” Reedy v. Werholtz,
660 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2011).
Ms. Bell does not present a single legal argument. Instead, she states generally
that she cannot work because she has been “very [i]ll,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2, and
asks us to contact her social security doctor to obtain her medical records. As we
have repeatedly emphasized, “cursory statements, without supporting analysis and
1
Shortly after the dismissal, Ms. Bell tried to resurrect her case by filing a
one-paragraph amended complaint, which the district court construed as a motion
seeking leave to file an amended complaint. By then, the district court had entered
final judgment and Ms. Bell had filed her notice of appeal; therefore, the district
court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction in an order issued on
January 13, 2017. That order is not under review here because the notice of appeal
does not encompass it. See R. at 8 (providing notice that Ms. Bell “appeal[s] . . .
from the final judgment entered in this action on 12-30-2016”).
-2-
case law, fail to constitute the kind of briefing that is necessary to avoid application
of the forfeiture doctrine.” Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1105 (10th Cir.
2007). In any event, Ms. Bell explicitly concedes the district court did not apply the
wrong law or incorrectly decide the facts. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 4. Accordingly,
we affirm the dismissal of her complaint.
Finally, we deny Ms. Bell’s “Motion to Allow Medical Documentation,”
which we construe as a motion to supplement the record on appeal, because the
materials referenced in that motion were never before the district court. See
Cornhusker Cas. Co. v. Skaj, 786 F.3d 842, 862-63 (10th Cir. 2015) (“We
undoubtedly have discretion to deny a motion to supplement the record on appeal
when the materials sought to be added to the record were never before the district
court.”). We also deny Ms. Bell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because she
has not shown “the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and
facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d
502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). We advise her that she is responsible for the immediate
payment of the unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-