Suzette Robinson v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 14-1268 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1268 SUZETTE ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 contentions and the authorities and parts relies. reasons of must for the contain them, record with on the appellant s citations which the to the appellant 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 these opening brief does not comply with 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. appellate review. We conclude, therefore, Robinson has waived Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
