Filed: Sep. 15, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 15, 2009 No. 08-31175 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk PATSY LOUVIERE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana No. 2:07-CV-549 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Patsy Louviere sought judicial re
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 15, 2009 No. 08-31175 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk PATSY LOUVIERE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana No. 2:07-CV-549 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Patsy Louviere sought judicial rev..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 15, 2009
No. 08-31175
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
PATSY LOUVIERE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
No. 2:07-CV-549
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Patsy Louviere sought judicial review of a final decision of the Commis-
sioner of Social Security denying her claim for supplemental security income
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-31175
payments under title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 1382c.
The magistrate judge prepared a thorough and convincing Report and Recom-
mendation, suggesting that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and
that the complaint be dismissed. The district court agreed and entered judg-
ment accordingly; Louviere appeals.
It is doubtful that, in her short brief, LouviereSSeven given the extra lati-
tude we accord pro se litigantsSShas presented her issues on appeal with suffi-
cient argument to comply with the applicable rules. She gives a one-page “State-
ment of the Case” in which she states her claimed disability and inability to find
work. She presents no argument as such but states the following as her “Sum-
mary of Argument”:
In summary one of your own doctors, Dr. Galloway, has stated that
he finds me to be disabled. I am requesting that the 5 th Circuit
Court of Appeals helps me by reversing Judge Astrue’s decision and
Gran[t] me disability compensation, and con[]sider me disabled[.]
See attached ex[h]ibit showin[g] degenerative disease.
Assuming, only for the sake of argument, that the foregoing is sufficient
to raise the issue of whether and how the district court or the Commissioner
erred, we find no error. The judgment denying relief is AFFIRMED, essentially
for the reasons given by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court.
2