Filed: May 26, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2358 SAMUEL CARLOS MILTON WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00683-WMN) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2358 SAMUEL CARLOS MILTON WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00683-WMN) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2358
SAMUEL CARLOS MILTON WILDER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cv-00683-WMN)
Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Carlos Milton Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Allen F.
Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Carlos Milton Wilder, Sr., appeals the district
court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for
failure to comply with the district court’s local rule that
requires pro se litigants to keep a current address on file. On
appeal, Wilder has failed to raise any arguments relevant to the
district court’s reasoning for dismissing the action. Thus,
those claims have been abandoned. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); see 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2