Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0131-01.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

Pamela Sue BOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-1090
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 27, 2017
    Decided: July 31, 2017
    Pamela Sue Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Maija DiDomenico, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pamela Sue Bond appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying Bond’s self-styled “Motion to Initiate Discovery by the Court.” On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because neither Bond’s informal brief nor the supplement thereto challenges the basis for the magistrate judge’s disposition on this post-judgment motion, Bond has forfeited appellate review of the order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. We deny Bond’s motion for clarification of the Social Security Administration’s theory of defense. 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