Dexter Brunson v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 16-1603 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Claimant abandoned any challenge to the ruling properly before this court by failing to include it in his brief, and the district court's judgment is affirmed without further comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1603 ___________________________ Dexter A. Brunson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: December 6, 2016 Filed: December 9, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dexter A. Brunson appeals following the district court’s1 order affirming a 2012 administrative decision to deny a hearing on his third application for disability insurance benefits. Brunson has abandoned any challenge to the only ruling properly before this court by not raising it in his brief. See Freitas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 703 F.3d 436, 438 n.3 (8th Cir. 2013) (issue is deemed abandoned where party fails to raise or discuss it in his brief); Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se litigant’s appeal where brief presented no question for appellate court to decide because it identified no basis of alleged error by district court). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
