Case Name: Germaine Amelia THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-13
Citations: 539 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 13-30121
Parties: Germaine Amelia THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 644–645

Head Matter:
Germaine Amelia THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-30121
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 13, 2013.
William Jared Vincent, Law Offices of William S. Vincent, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Melinda Renee Newman, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, Jason M. Bigelow, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Germaine Amelia Thomas appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Social Security Administration (SSA) in her judicial challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security's administrative denial of her application for supplemental security income payments under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On appeal, Thomas, who is represented by counsel, alleges only that the administrative law judge (ALJ) improperly weighed the opinion of a state agency medical consultant in determining Thomas's residual functional capacity.
Our careful review of the record reveals that Thomas nowhere made this argument before the district court. It is familiar law that a party who wishes to preserve an argument for appeal must raise the argument "to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it." Because Thomas failed to raise the argument that the ALJ improperly weighed the consultant's opinion in the district court, the district court had no opportunity to rule on it. Accordingly, Thomas's sole argument is waived.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. FDIC v. Mijalis, 15 F.3d 1314, 1327 (5th Cir.1994).