Rex Harris v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00664-WO-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999713194]. Mailed to: Harris. [15-1698]

Appeal: 15-1698

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/07/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1698

REX HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS,
HUMAN SERVICES,

SECRETARY

U.S.

DEPARTMENT

OF

HEALTH

&

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00664-WO-JLW)

Submitted:

November 24, 2015

Decided:

December 7, 2015

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rex Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.

Lisa G. Smoller, Special
Boston, Massachusetts, for

Appeal: 15-1698

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/07/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1698

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/07/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Rex Harris appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner’s

award

of

benefits

supplemental security income.

on

Harris’

application

for

Harris alleges that his prior

applications should have been reopened and that the Commissioner
owed him additional back payments.

We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error.
“[N]either the Administrative Procedure Act nor 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts
to

review

the

Secretary’s

determination.”

refusal

to

reopen

a

prior

Hall v. Chater, 52 F.3d 518, 520 (4th Cir.

1995) (citing Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 102 (1977)); see
also 20 C.F.R. § 416.1403(a)(5) (2015) (denial of request to
reopen SSI determination not subject to judicial review).

Any

issue concerning the correct amount of back payments to which
Harris may be entitled was not properly presented in district
court.
has

Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that Harris

exhausted

his

administrative

remedies

or

that

the

Commissioner has issued a final decision on the matter of any
back

payments

to

which

he

may

be

entitled.

See

42

U.S.C.

§ 405(g) (2012) (granting judicial review over final decision of
Commissioner made after hearing).
district

court’s

order

and

Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment.

Harris

1:12-cv-00664-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. June 18, 2015).
3

v.

Colvin,

No.

We dispense with

Appeal: 15-1698

oral

Doc: 11

argument

adequately

Filed: 12/07/2015

because

presented

in

the
the

Pg: 4 of 4

facts

and

materials

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4