UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

SHARON D. BELL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, COURT OF 

APPEALS (ALJ), 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 17-6005 

(D.C. No. 5:16-CV-01480-F) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied Sharon D. 

Bell’s application for social security benefits. We know little about the history of 

this case because the record on appeal is sparse. But it appears Ms. Bell tried to 

challenge the Commissioner’s denial of benefits by filing a blank, unsigned 

complaint in federal district court. On December 30, 2016, the district court 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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 doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

June 20, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

dismissed the case without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), citing Ms. Bell’s 

failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).1

 We affirm. 

Ms. Bell appears pro se, so we liberally construe her filings. See Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1201 n.2 (10th Cir. 

2010). We cannot, however, serve as her attorney by “constructing arguments and 

searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 

(10th Cir. 2005). 

Even under this standard, Ms. Bell’s opening brief falls short. “The first task 

of an appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.” 

Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015). When “[t]he 

argument section of [the] opening brief does not challenge the [district] court’s 

reasoning on [a] point[, w]e . . . do not address the matter.” Reedy v. Werholtz, 

660 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2011). 

Ms. Bell does not present a single legal argument. Instead, she states generally 

that she cannot work because she has been “very [i]ll,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2, and 

asks us to contact her social security doctor to obtain her medical records. As we 

have repeatedly emphasized, “cursory statements, without supporting analysis and 

 1

 Shortly after the dismissal, Ms. Bell tried to resurrect her case by filing a 

one-paragraph amended complaint, which the district court construed as a motion 

seeking leave to file an amended complaint. By then, the district court had entered 

final judgment and Ms. Bell had filed her notice of appeal; therefore, the district 

court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction in an order issued on 

January 13, 2017. That order is not under review here because the notice of appeal 

does not encompass it. See R. at 8 (providing notice that Ms. Bell “appeal[s] . . . 

from the final judgment entered in this action on 12-30-2016”). 
- 3 - 

case law, fail to constitute the kind of briefing that is necessary to avoid application 

of the forfeiture doctrine.” Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1105 (10th Cir. 

2007). In any event, Ms. Bell explicitly concedes the district court did not apply the 

wrong law or incorrectly decide the facts. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 4. Accordingly, 

we affirm the dismissal of her complaint. 

Finally, we deny Ms. Bell’s “Motion to Allow Medical Documentation,” 

which we construe as a motion to supplement the record on appeal, because the 

materials referenced in that motion were never before the district court. See 

Cornhusker Cas. Co. v. Skaj, 786 F.3d 842, 862-63 (10th Cir. 2015) (“We 

undoubtedly have discretion to deny a motion to supplement the record on appeal 

when the materials sought to be added to the record were never before the district 

court.”). We also deny Ms. Bell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because she 

has not shown “the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and 

facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 

502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). We advise her that she is responsible for the immediate 

payment of the unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge