Victor Gerard Guyton, II v. Commissioner of Social Security

── Victor Gerard Guyton, II v. Commissioner of Social Security ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 10, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-14160 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14160 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ VICTOR GERARD GUYTON, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-21076-EGT ____________________ Before JORDAN, KIDD, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Victor Guyton, II, proceeding pro se, appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) de- USCA11 Case: 25-14160 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 25-14160 nial of his claims for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and sup- plemental security income (“SSI”).1 On appeal, Guyton argues that (1) substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that his physical impairments did not meet or equal any listed impair- ment at step three of the disability analysis, and (2) substantial evi- dence does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that he could perform other jobs different from his past relevant work despite his physical impairments at step five of the analysis. After review, 2 we affirm. I. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, Guyton has forfeited all of the issues he raises on appeal because he failed to assert them with sufficient par- ticularity in the district court proceedings. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (“This Court has repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this 1 The procedures for analyzing DIB and SSI claims are “essentially the same,” so our discussion below applies equally to Guyton’s claims for both types of benefits. See Bowen v. City of N.Y., 476 U.S. 467, 470 (1986). The magistrate judge handled the case pursuant to the parties’ consent. 2 “When an administrative law judge denies an application for disability insur- ance benefits and the Appeals Council denies review, we review the adminis- trative law judge’s decision as the final decision of the Commissioner.” Walker v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 987 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2021). Our review “is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the correct legal standards were applied.” Id. “We review de novo both the Commissioner’s legal conclusions, and the district court’s decision about whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (citations omitted). USCA11 Case: 25-14160 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 3 of 11 25-14160 Opinion of the Court 3 court.” (quotation marks omitted)); Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1161 (11th Cir. 2004) (declining in social security case to consider issue that was not raised before the