Dewey Tomblin v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 4th Cir. 1993 holding that issues raised for the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2407
DEWEY TOMBLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CA-03-286-3)
Submitted: August 3, 2005 Decided: August 18, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dewey Tomblin, Appellant Pro Se. Roxanne Andrews, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Dewey Tomblin appeals the district court’s order
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny
him Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income
benefits. On appeal, Tomblin asserts that he was denied the right
to counsel before the administrative law judge. Although Tomblin
was represented by counsel in the district court, he did not raise
this issue either before the administrative forum or the lower
court.
It is well-settled law that issues raised for the first
time on appeal generally are not considered by this court. See
Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding
that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally
waived absent exceptional circumstances); Pleasant Valley Hosp.,
Inc. v. Shalala, 32 F.3d 67, 70 (4th Cir. 1994) (“it is
inappropriate for courts reviewing appeals of agency decisions to
consider arguments not raised before the administrative agency
involved”). Here, Tomblin submitted a counseled brief in the
district court that did not raise this issue. Accordingly, we
conclude that Tomblin has waived this claim. We therefore affirm
the district court’s order. Tomblin v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-286-3
(S.D. W. Va. Sept. 30, 2004). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --