Case Name: Kenneth Eugene CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-16
Citations: 711 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 17-2273
Parties: Kenneth Eugene CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
Kenneth Eugene CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-2273
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 15, 2018
Decided: February 16, 2018
Kenneth Eugene Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia; Nicole Appalucci Schmid, Assistant Regional Counsel, Nora R. Koch, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Eugene Carter appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his complaint for lack of jurisdiction because Carter failed to exhaust the administrative remedies for his claim under the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g), (h) (Supp. 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a) (2017). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Carter's informal brief does not challenge the district court's conclusion that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his complaint, Carter has forfeited appellate review of the district court's dispositive ruling. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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
The district court's order is final and appeal-able because the defect identified by the district court must be cured by something more than an amendment to the allegations in the complaint. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015).