UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2260
TERRY L. DEAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cv-00078-FPS-JSK)
Submitted: June 4, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry L. Dean, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Sharon Lynn Potter, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Donald K.
Neely, Maija Pelly, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Philadelphia, P.A., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry L. Dean appeals from the district court order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the
administrative law judge’s denial of disability benefits be
upheld on summary judgment. See Dean v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
No. 5:08-cv-00078-FPS-JSK (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 2, 2009). On
appeal, Dean, proceeding pro se, has submitted only a one-page
brief, which consists of only two paragraphs, and no citations
to case law or the record, to support his claim that he is
“entitled to all back pay for the time lost from 2002 to 2007.”
We find that Dean’s very vague and very terse statements in his
opening brief fail to comport with the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure and/or this Court’s local rules; thus we
find that Dean has waived appellate review of the issues he has
attempted to raise.
An Appellant’s opening brief must contain the
“appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them”. See Fed. R.
App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see also 4th Cir. R. 34(b)(same). To the
extent an Appellant’s opening brief fails to comply with these
requirements with regard to any particular issue, he has waived
appellate review of that issue. See, e.g., Igen Int'l, Inc. v.
Roche Diagnostics GMBH, 335 F.3d 303, 308 (4th Cir. 2003)
(“Failure to present or argue assignments of error in opening
appellate briefs constitutes a waiver of those issues,” even
2
when it appears the district court’s resolution of those issues
was wrong); see also Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648,
653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (conclusory assignments of error without
supporting argument are insufficient to preserve a merit-based
challenge to a district court’s order on appeal).
Because Dean’s appellate brief is insufficient to meet
these standards, we find he has waived appellate review.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
3