From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cottman v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nov 9, 2010
400 F. App'x 769 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-1257.

Submitted: October 28, 2010.

Decided: November 9, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-01753-BPG).

Donald Ray Cottman, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Donald Ray Cottman appeals the magistrate judge's order affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Cottman a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Cottman v. Astrue, No. 1:08-cv-01753-BPG, 2009 WL 4884506 (D.Md. Dec. 9, 2009). To the extent Cottman raises new claims on appeal, it is well settled 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). 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.

The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).


Summaries of

Cottman v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nov 9, 2010
400 F. App'x 769 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Cottman v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Donald Ray COTTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Nov 9, 2010

Citations

400 F. App'x 769 (4th Cir. 2010)