Reginald Evans v. Commissioner Social Security

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-04953-RMG-SVH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999963344]. Mailed to: Reginald Evans #123 1200 Broad Street Sumter, SC 29150. [16-1392]

Appeal: 16-1392

Doc: 4

Filed: 11/07/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1392

REGINALD EVANS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-04953-RMG-SVH)

Submitted:

October 14, 2016

Decided:

November 7, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, TRAXLER, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1392

Doc: 4

Filed: 11/07/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Reginald
dismissing
Social

Evans

his

appeals

civil

Security

action

based

on

administrative

the

(SSA)

court’s

Commissioner

for

failure

to

order
of

the

exhaust

Evans filed suit seeking appropriate

the

appeal

district

against

Administration

administrative remedies.
relief

the

SSA’s
of

refusal
denial

the

to

respond

of

to

his

request

for

individual

must

his

disability benefits.
Pursuant

to

42

U.S.C.

§ 405

(2012),

an

exhaust administrative remedies before he may challenge an SSA
benefits decision in federal court.
U.S. 319, 328 (1976).

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424

In his complaint and answers to the

district court’s interrogatories, Evans admitted that he had not
proceeded

beyond

filing

a

request

for

reconsideration.

Therefore, the district court correctly determined that it did
not have subject matter jurisdiction over any action challenging
the

merits

of

the

SSA’s

determination.

See

20

C.F.R.

§ 416.1400(a) (2016).
However, because Evans was a pro se party, his complaint
was entitled to liberal interpretation.
U.S.

89,

94

(2007)

(per

curiam).

Erickson v. Pardus, 551
We

conclude

that

Evans’

pleadings raised the possibility that he sought relief in the
form of a writ of mandamus.
exhaust

administrative

Moreover, although Evans failed to

remedies,
2

courts

maintain

jurisdiction

Appeal: 16-1392

over

Doc: 4

Filed: 11/07/2016

requests

for

a

writ

Pg: 3 of 3

of

mandamus

if

the

plaintiff

establishes that “the administrative process normally available
is not accessible” because the agency fails or refuses to act.
U.S. ex rel. Rahman v. Oncology Assoc., P.C., 198 F.3d 502, 515
(4th Cir. 1999).

We conclude that the district court should

have considered Evans’ complaint in such a light.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

3