Kelvin Wells v. Cmsnr of Social Security , 690 F. App'x 157 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 16-30753      Document: 00514012076         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/30/2017
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 16-30753
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    Summary Calendar                         May 30, 2017
    Lyle W. Cayce
    KELVIN WELLS,                                                                  Clerk
    Plaintiff–Appellant,
    v.
    NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
    SECURITY,
    Defendant–Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 3:13-CV-830
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    In September 2010, Kelvin Wells filed an application for supplemental
    security income benefits, alleging that he was disabled due to post-traumatic
    stress disorder, depression, back injuries, congestive heart failure, and
    hypertension. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Wells
    was not disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act. Specifically, the ALJ
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 16-30753    Document: 00514012076     Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/30/2017
    No. 16-30753
    found that although Wells suffered from severe impairments and had not
    engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 2010, his impairments
    were not equal in severity to those listed in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R.
    § 404.1520(a)(i)–(iii). The ALJ also held that Wells had the residual functional
    capacity to perform certain types of work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(v). The
    Appeals Council subsequently denied Wells’s request for review, rendering the
    ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Wells
    then filed this pro se action in district court seeking review of the
    Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). After a magistrate
    judge evaluated the case, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
    report and recommendation and affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of
    benefits. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction to review the district
    court’s final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
    “We review the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits ‘only to
    ascertain whether (1) the final decision is supported by substantial evidence
    and (2) whether the Commissioner used the proper legal standards to evaluate
    the evidence.’” Whitehead v. Colvin, 
    820 F.3d 776
    , 779 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting
    Newton v. Apfel, 
    209 F.3d 448
    , 452 (5th Cir. 2000)). “Substantial evidence is
    more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence
    as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Kane
    v. Heckler, 
    731 F.2d 1216
    , 1219 (5th Cir. 1984). We “apply less stringent
    standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel,”
    but “pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the
    standards of Rule 28.” Grant v. Cuellar, 
    59 F.3d 523
    , 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per
    curiam).
    Wells argues that the Commissioner and district court erred by denying
    him social security benefits. In support, Wells merely states that there was “no
    material evidence in the record” to support the decisions by the Commissioner
    2
    Case: 16-30753      Document: 00514012076         Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/30/2017
    No. 16-30753
    and the district court. However, as the magistrate judge noted, substantial
    evidence supported the Commissioner’s determination that Wells had the
    residual functional capacity to work. Medical records suggested that any back
    pain Wells experienced was manageable, his spinal examinations were
    consistently normal, and he had not complained of side effects associated with
    his medications. Although mental health evaluations indicated that Wells may
    have experienced some stress, memory problems, and depression, the
    evaluations suggested that his symptoms did not significantly interfere with
    his ability to work or perform daily activities. Thus, we hold that the district
    court did not err in affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
    Wells also contends that the district court erred by refusing to allow him
    to file a motion in opposition to the magistrate judge’s report and
    recommendation. When Wells attempted to file his motion on May 26, 2016,
    however, he was subject to sanctions barring him from filing any documents
    with the district court until he paid a $100 fine the court had imposed due to
    his frivolous filings in another case. 1 See Wells v. Louisiana, No. 15-CV-598
    (M.D. La. May 19, 2016). Wells did not pay the fine until June 17, 2016, one
    day after the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
    recommendation in the instant case. “The district courts wield their various
    sanction powers at their broad discretion.” Topalian v. Ehrman, 
    3 F.3d 931
    ,
    934 (5th Cir. 1993). “A district court has jurisdiction to impose a pre-filing
    injunction to deter vexatious, abusive, and harassing litigation.” Baum v. Blue
    Moon Ventures, LLC, 
    513 F.3d 181
    , 187 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Farguson v.
    MBank Houston, N.A., 
    808 F.2d 358
    , 360 (5th Cir. 1986) (noting that “where
    monetary sanctions are ineffective in deterring vexatious filings, enjoining
    1This Court previously warned Wells that “any future frivolous pleadings filed by him
    in this court or in any court subject to the jurisdiction of this court will subject him to
    sanctions.” Wells v. Divincenti, 582 F. App’x 318 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
    3
    Case: 16-30753     Document: 00514012076     Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/30/2017
    No. 16-30753
    such filings would be considered”). Accordingly, we hold that the district court
    did not err in refusing to allow Wells to file his motion in opposition to the
    report and recommendation.
    The remainder of Wells’s contentions on appeal appear to relate to one
    or more of his previous applications for social security benefits. Wells spends
    much of his brief discussing an application for benefits filed in November 1999,
    even though the application at issue in this case was filed in 2010. The current
    status of Wells’s previous application for social security benefits is not readily
    apparent from the record, but it is clear that no prior benefits applications have
    been consolidated with the instant one. Because Wells has only appealed the
    Commissioner’s decision regarding his 2010 application for social security
    benefits, we need not review claims that relate to previous benefits
    applications. See Muse v. Sullivan, 
    925 F.2d 785
    , 787 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991).
    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
    4