Donnell Peele v. Kilolo Kijakazi, No. 21-2438 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-2438 DONNELL LASHON PEELE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00269-GCM-DCK) Submitted: March 24, 2022 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnell Lashon Peele, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: March 28, 2022 PER CURIAM: Donnell Peele appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Peele’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Liberally construing his informal brief, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), Peele argues that there were irregularities in his hearing before the ALJ that invalidated the ALJ’s decision. However, Peele did not raise this issue before the district court, and he has therefore waived any arguments on this point on appeal. Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal). Moreover, after reviewing the remainder of Peele’s informal brief, we conclude that Peele has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (limiting our review to issues preserved in informal brief); Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (cleaned up)). We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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.
