Case ID: f-appx_141/html/0181-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dewey TOMBLIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-2407.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.
    Decided: Aug. 18, 2005.
    Dewey Tomblin, Appellant Pro Se. Roxanne Andrews, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Dewey Tomblin appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny him Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. On appeal, Tomblin asserts that he was denied the right to counsel before the administrative law judge. Although Tomblin was represented by counsel in the district court, he did not raise this issue either before the administrative forum or the lower court.

It is well-settled law that issues raised for the first time on appeal generally are not considered by this court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally waived absent exceptional circumstances); Pleasant Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Shalala, 32 F.3d 67, 70 (4th Cir.1994) (“it is inappropriate for courts reviewing appeals of agency decisions to consider arguments not raised before the administrative agency involved”). Here, Tomblin submitted a counseled brief in the district court that did not raise this issue. Accordingly, we conclude that Tomblin has waived this claim. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. Tomblin v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-286-3 (S.D.W.Va. Sept. 30, 2004). 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