Beck v. Halter

Seventh Circuit

Beck v. Halter

2 F. App'x 562

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 2001

DocketNo. 00-3883

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 F. App'x 562 (Beck v. Halter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beck v. Halter, 2 F. App'x 562 (7th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

An administrative law judge denied Daniel Beck’s claims for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. A magistrate judge presiding by consent upheld the ALJ’s decision as supported by substantial evidence, and Beck appeals.

Compliance with Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is a precondition to appellate review. But Beck has not complied with that rule, which requires in part that a brief include an argument with citations to relevant authority. Fed. RApp. P. 28(a)(9); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544 (7th Cir.2001); Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Although Beck states generally in his brief that he presented sufficient evidence of disability, he fails to develop any meaningful argument [563]*563in support of that position. Because Beck has not complied with Rule 28(a)(9), the appeal is DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

An administrative law judge denied Daniel Beck’s claims for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. A magistrate judge presiding by consent upheld the ALJ’s decision as supported by substantial evidence, and Beck appeals.

Compliance with Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is a precondition to appellate review. But Beck has not complied with that rule, which requires in part that a brief include an argument with citations to relevant authority. Fed. RApp. P. 28(a)(9); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544 (7th Cir.2001); Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Although Beck states generally in his brief that he presented sufficient evidence of disability, he fails to develop any meaningful argument [563]*563in support of that position. Because Beck has not complied with Rule 28(a)(9), the appeal is DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. App'x 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-halter-ca7-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack