UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MARK MOFFETT, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. No. 14-3075 (D.C. No. 6:12-CV-01443-SAC) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , ANDERSON , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
Mark Moffett, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the district court that affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to deny his application for disability insurance benefits. Exerci sing jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 30, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - Mr. Moffett alleged disability begi nning April 1997. His insured status expired in December 2002. Mr . Moffett previously applied fo r disability benefits and was found not disabled in a 2000 decision. The relevant pe riod for this case therefore spans from May 2000, after th e previously adjudicated pe riod, to December 31, 2002, the date Mr. Moffett’s in sured status expired. Mr. Moffett had a hearing on his app lication before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ determined that Mr. Moffett had the following severe impairments: status post left ankle fractu re with open reduction a nd internal fixation, and degenerative arthritis of th e left ankle secondary to th at fracture. The ALJ also noted that Mr. Moffett had been diagnosed with an affective disorder of major depression and alcohol abuse disorder. The ALJ found, howev er, that Mr. Moffett retained the residual functi onal capacity to perform se dentary work, with some additional restrictions. Although the AL J determined that Mr. Moffett could not return to his past relevant work, he concluded that he was not disabled because he could perform other jobs that existed in significant numbe rs in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, and th e district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision. This appeal followed. Mr. Moffett’s pro se appellate brief is inadequate as he does not support his arguments with citations to the record or any legal aut horities and therefore fails to comply with Federal Rule of Ap pellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A). See id . (providing that an appellant’s opening brief “must cont ain . . . appellant’s contentions and the- 3 - reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”). Although hi s brief is deficient, we ha ve considered the arguments he raises that were raised before the district court. See Berna v. Chater , 101 F.3d 631, 632 (10th Cir. 1996) (“The scope of our review . . . is limited to the issues the claimant properly preserves in the district court . . . .”). We conclude, however, that Mr. Moffett has failed to identify any revers ible error in the dist rict court’s decision upholding the ALJ’s denial of benefits. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially th e same reasons stated by th e district court in its Memorandum and Order date d February 20, 2014.

Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich Circuit Judge