Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

David Wilkins v. Commissioner, Social Security, 20-1158 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 20-1158 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1158 DAVID WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03632-SAG) Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020 Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wilkins, Appellan
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 20-1158


DAVID WILKINS,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03632-SAG)


Submitted: April 14, 2020                                         Decided: April 17, 2020


Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       David Wilkins, on behalf of his minor son K.M.W., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing Wilkins’ petition for review of the Social Security Administration’s decision

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Wilkins’ failure to exhaust his administrative

remedies. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wilkins’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the

district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See

Jackson v. Lightsey, 
775 F.3d 170
, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer