IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50901
Summary Calendar
GLADYS I. MCDOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-98-CV-199
--------------------
August 16, 2000
Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gladys I. McDow, pro se, appeals from the district court’s
judgment affirming the application of the offset provision of 42
U.S.C. § 402(e) to her surviving spouse benefit. She also has
filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal.
McDow argues that the Social Security Act unconstitutionally
discriminates against surviving spouses who are former government
workers by applying the offset provisions of § 402(e), thereby
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-50901
-2-
reducing their benefits by two-thirds the amount that they
receive in their government pensions.
However, McDow has failed to cite to any relevant authority
to support her position as required by the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(a). Although we
apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than
to parties represented by counsel and liberally construe briefs
of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues.
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Failure to
present any authority in support of an argument constitutes an
abandonment of the issue. United States v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249,
258 (5th Cir. 1994); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993).
As McDow has abandoned the only issue properly before this
court, her appeal is DISMISSED. McDow also moves this court to
supplement the record on appeal. Since we do not generally
enlarge the record on appeal to include evidence that was not
before the district court, this motion is DENIED. See Trinity
Industries, Inc. v. Martin, 963 F.2d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 1992).