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 So cial Security Administ ration 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. Bu t it appears Ms. Bell tried to challenge the Commissioner’s denial of benefits by filing a blank, unsigned complaint in federal distri ct court. On December 30, 2016, the district court

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 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 Fe d. 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 he r 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 openi ng brief falls short. “The first task of an appellant is to expl ain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.” Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver , 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Ci r. 2015). When “[t]he argument section of [the] opening brief doe s 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. In stead, she states generally that she cannot work because she has been “very [i]ll,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2, and asks us to contact he r social security doctor to obtai n her medical records. As we have repeatedly emphasized, “cursory stat ements, without supporting analysis and

1 Shortly after the dismissa l, Ms. Bell tried to resu rrect her case by filing a one-paragraph amended complaint, which th e district court c onstrued 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 appea l; 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 b ecause the notice of appeal does not encompass it. See R. at 8 (providing notice th at Ms. Bell “appeal[s] . . . from the final judgment entered in this action on 12-30-2016”).- 3 - case law, fail to constitute th e kind of briefing that is n ecessary to avoid application of the forfeiture doctrine.” Bronson v. Swensen , 500 F.3d 1099, 1105 (10th Cir. 2007). In any event, Ms. Bell explicitly c oncedes 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 suppl ement 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 moti on 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 reas oned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the i ssues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan , 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). We advise her that she is re sponsible for the immediate payment of the unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge