In Re: Franklin Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999914701-2]; denying Motions to compel [999970461-2], [999918335-2]; dismissing Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) filed by Petitioner Franklin C. Smith [999908581-2] Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999972051]. Mailed to: F. Smith. [16-1912]

Appeal: 16-1912

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1912

In re:

FRANKLIN C. SMITH,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

MOTZ

and

November 21, 2016

TRAXLER,

Circuit

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin C. Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1912

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Franklin C. Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
to compel the Social Security Administration (SSA) to reinstate
disability benefits.
he

exhausted

petition.

However, Smith presents no evidence that

administrative

procedures

prior

to

filing

this

See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 (1976).

Absent exhaustion of administrative procedures, courts maintain
jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of mandamus only if the
petitioner 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 Assocs., P.C., 198 F.3d

502, 515 (4th Cir. 1999).

Smith has not demonstrated that the

SSA has refused to consider his case, and we therefore do not
have jurisdiction to consider Smith’s petition.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis,

we

deny

Smith’s

mandamus petition.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

motions

to

compel

and

dismiss

his

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED

2