Court Opinion

ID: 9899112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 21:00:39.425716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:57.522287
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2119      Doc: 24         Filed: 11/14/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-2119

        JENNIFER BOWLES,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00243-WO-JLW)

        Submitted: October 30, 2023                                  Decided: November 14, 2023

        Before GREGORY and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jennifer Bowles, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth DiVito, Assistant Regional Counsel, David
        Nathaniel Mervis, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2119      Doc: 24          Filed: 11/14/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jennifer Bowles appeals the district court’s order and judgment adopting the

        magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting the Commissioner’s motion for

        judgment on the pleadings, and affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying disability

        insurance benefits. We generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal,

        Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020), and confine our review to the issues

        raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Many of the issues Bowles raises in her

        informal brief were not raised in the district court. And after reviewing the remainder of

        Bowles’ informal brief, we conclude that she has forfeited appellate review of the district

        court’s order by not raising any issues challenging the district court’s findings or analysis.

        Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (limiting our review to issues

        preserved in informal brief). Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order and 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

                                                      2