The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-1614•Michelle Coward, on behalf of Earl Thomas v. Hall, 770 F.2d 1267, 1271 4th Cir. 1985
03-1614Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 14, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1614
MICHELLE COWARD, on behalf of Earl Thomas,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-
228-1-AMD)
Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: October 14, 2003
Before WILKINSON, WIDENER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michelle Coward, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine Lynn Sendek-Smith,
Assistant United States Attorney, John Walter Sippel, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge.
2
PER CURIAM:
On behalf of Earl Thomas, his mother, Michelle Coward, appeals
the magistrate judge’s * order granting summary judgment to the
Commissioner in Coward’s claim for Supplemental Security Income
childhood disability payments under the Social Security Act. On
appeal, Coward raises claims not raised in the district court. We
generally do not review issues not raised before the district
court, Stewart v. Hall, 770 F.2d 1267, 1271 (4th Cir. 1985);
Williams v. Shalala, 997 F.2d 1494, 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1993), and we
find no extraordinary circumstances in this case necessitating
review. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the magistrate judge.
We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.