Automated Summary
Key Facts
David Murillo, a veteran with a 100% disability rating from the VA since 2018, applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits in October 2022. His application was denied initially (May 2023) and upon reconsideration (August 2023). A January 2024 hearing before an ALJ resulted in a determination that he was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council finalized this decision in June 2024. Murillo filed a district court complaint in August 2024, but the court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation from July 2025 to uphold the ALJ's ruling based on 'substantial record evidence' showing he could find work in the current economy. The Fifth Circuit affirmed this judgment in full on March 16, 2026.
Issues
- The court reviewed whether the Commissioner's denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied, as required under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- The court determined that Murillo did not adequately brief his arguments, leading to their abandonment under Fifth Circuit rules requiring pro se litigants to present arguments properly to preserve them.
Holdings
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that Plaintiff-Appellant David Murillo was not disabled under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 423(d)), holding that his failure to properly brief arguments on appeal resulted in abandonment of his claims.
Remedies
The court affirmed the district court's judgment in full, upholding the denial of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits to David Murillo.
Legal Principles
- The court emphasized that while pro se pleadings are given liberal construction, litigants must still properly brief arguments to preserve them on appeal. Murillo's failure to provide evidentiary support in his brief led to the conclusion that he abandoned his claims.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the Commissioner's denial of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), determining that the final decision must be supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards must have been applied. This standard is central to administrative law review in social security cases.
Precedent Name
- Morris v. Livingston
- Keel v. Saul
- Mapes v. Bishop
- Whitehead v. Colvin
Cited Statute
- Social Security Act
- United States Code - Title 28
Judge Name
- Oldham
- Stewart
- Graves
Passage Text
- Murillo has failed to preserve any arguments on appeal. 'Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.' Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see also Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 752 (5th Cir. 2014). Here, Murillo's brief consists of bare assertions bereft of evidentiary support. Accordingly, we hold that Murillo has abandoned his claims.
- For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment in full.
- On July 21, 2025 the magistrate judge recommended affirming the ALJ's ruling, explaining that the ALJ relied on 'substantial record evidence' before correctly determining that Murillo could 'find[] jobs in the current economy.'1 See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and Murillo appealed.