Court Opinion

ID: 9891789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:28.992965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:32.337648
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30355         Document: 00516936747             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                        No. 23-30355                            October 19, 2023
                                      ____________
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Tiffany Latres’ Stamper,                                                           Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:21-CV-460
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Tiffany Latres’ Stamper applied for social security disability benefits.
   An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied the application, and a
   magistrate judge recommended dismissing her subsequent challenge. The
   district court agreed and affirmed. We affirm as well.
          When reviewing a “final decision” of the Commissioner, we ask if the
   decision was “supported by substantial evidence” and if “the Commissioner

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30355      Document: 00516936747          Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/19/2023

                                    No. 23-30355

   used the proper legal standards to evaluate the evidence.” Kneeland v.
   Berryhill, 850 F.3d 749, 753 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). This standard
   is “exceedingly deferential.” Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir.
   2012). It is even more deferential when, as here, the plaintiff fails to object
   to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. In such cases, we will
   only reverse if there is plain error. See Sneed v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 50
   F.4th 483, 490 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). An error is plain if it is
   “clear or obvious” and “affects [a plaintiff’s] substantial rights.” Baisden v.
   I’m Ready Prods., Inc., 693 F.3d 491, 506 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Puckett v.
   United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)).
          Stamper cannot show any error, let alone clear error. To begin, she
   argues that the ALJ failed to consider the proper disability onset date. But he
   did. And that determination is supported by substantial evidence, including
   Stamper’s admission that the onset date was 2018 and documents indicating
   that she was earning wages before that date.
          Stamper also points to the statement of a vocational expert declaring
   her to be disabled. Yet that testimony was responding to a hypothetical
   question posed by the ALJ. We have explained that “[w]hen hypothetical
   testimony by a vocational expert is unsupported by the evidence, the ALJ
   may properly disregard that testimony.” Jenkins v. Astrue, 250 F. App’x 645,
   647 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). That is what happened here.
          Stamper’s remaining claims either lack merit or are waived. For
   instance, Stamper raises vague, conclusory allegations of constitutional and
   civil rights violations and judicial misconduct. Because she never raised these
   issues before the district court, we decline to address them. See Castillo v.
   Barnhart, 325 F.3d 550, 552 (5th Cir. 2003). Stamper also contends that
   there were inaccuracies in the administrative record and in the ALJ’s
   decision, but she does not explain what those inaccuracies were. Her failure

                                         2
Case: 23-30355      Document: 00516936747          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/19/2023

                                    No. 23-30355

   to “adequately [] brief” this issue “constitutes waiver of that argument.”
   Proctor & Gamble v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004); see
   also United States v. Fernandez, 48 F.4th 405, 412 (5th Cir. 2022). And, while
   Stamper contends that certain exhibits submitted by her attorney were
   improperly excluded, the record shows the ALJ permitted her attorney to
   submit those exhibits and even referenced some of them in the decision
   denying her relief.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3