Sanders v. Barnhart

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 17, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60889
Summary Calendar
ROBERT SANDERS,
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 Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CV-831-WS
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Sanders appeals the judgment of the district court
that affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”). The Commissioner denied Sanders’ request for a
waiver of recovery of retirement benefits overpayments made to
Sanders in the years 1992, 1995, and 1996.
Sanders contends that he was not at fault and did not cause
the overpayments and that repayment constituted a hardship.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-60889
-2-
Sanders asserts that the Social Security Administration has the
financial records and should be able to pay benefits correctly.
He asserts that the Administrative Law Judge was biased and that
the district court did not afford him a fair trial.
Our review is limited to determining whether the
Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and
whether any errors of law were made. Bray v. Bowen, 854 F.2d
685, 686-87 (5th Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence “means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.” Rini v. Harris, 615 F.2d 625, 627 (5th
Cir. 1980). We do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our
judgment for the Commissioner’s judgment. Rini, 615 F.2d at 627.
Substantial evidence in the record supports the
Administrative Law Judge’s findings that Sanders failed to
furnish material information concerning his earned income for the
years 1992, 1995, and 1996 and that he accepted benefits payments
in those years that he knew or could have been expected to know
were incorrect. See Bray, 854 F.2d at 687. Accordingly, Sanders
was not without fault in causing the overpayments and was not
entitled to waiver of recovery of the overpayments. See 42
U.S.C. § 404(b); Bray, 854 F.2d at 687.
Sanders asserts that the Administrative Law Judge was biased
and that the district court denied him a fair trial. Sanders
does not provide facts to support these assertions. Although we
apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than
No. 03-60889
-3-
to parties represented by counsel and liberally construe the
briefs of pro se litigants, pro se litigants must still brief the
issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of FED. R. APP.
P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Sanders has not
so complied.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.