Ansarullah v. Colvin

Filing 14

ORDER granting 12 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and directing the Clerk to close the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 7/2/2015. (c/m 7/2/15 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

July 2, 2015
Yahya Y. Ansarullah
1002 West Mosher Street
Apartment A Rear
Baltimore, Maryland 21217
Stacey Winakur Harris
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard, Room 617
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
RE:

Yahya Y. Ansarullah v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-15-0919

Dear Counsel and Mr. Ansarullah:
I have considered the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. [ECF No. 12]. I find that no hearing is necessary. See Local R. 105.6 (D. Md.
2014). For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that the Commissioner’s Motion be
granted.
On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff Yahya Y. Ansarullah, who appears pro se, filed a complaint
appealing a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. On June 5,
2015, the Commissioner filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. [ECF No. 12]. That same day, the Clerk’s Office mailed a Rule 12/56 letter to Mr.
Ansarullah. [ECF No. 13]. That letter advised Mr. Ansarullah that a failure to oppose the
Commissioner’s motion could result in dismissal of his case. Id. Mr. Ansarullah has not filed
any response.
This Court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Ansarullah’s claim because, to date, he
has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and is not appealing from a final order. Under
Social Security Act sections 205(g) and (h), an individual may only obtain judicial review of the
Commissioner’s “final” decision after he has exhausted all administrative remedies. See 42
U.S.C. § 405(g)-(h). Because there is no formula for determining whether a decision is final, the
meaning of that term is left to federal and state agencies to define by regulation. Weinberger v.
Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766 (1975). Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act provides that “any
individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing to which he was a
party . . . may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Yahya Y. Ansarullah v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-15-0919
July 2, 2015
Page 2

In this case, Mr. Ansarullah has not established the existence of any final decision of the
Commissioner which would entitle him to appeal. In his complaint, he alleges that the date of
the final decision is August 11, 2009.1 The record before this Court does not reflect any decision
made by the Commissioner on that date, pertaining to Mr. Ansarullah’s claim for benefits.
Benefits were awarded to Mr. Ansarullah on August 29, 2008, Def. Mot. Ex. 1, and the decision
to modify the payments to withhold for overpayment was communicated to Mr. Ansarullah in
2014. Def. Mot. Ex. 2. Mr. Ansarullah requested reconsideration of the overpayment issue in
October, 2014. Def. Mot. Ex. 3. As of March 27, 2015, three days before Mr. Ansarullah filed
the instant Complaint, his appeal remained pending before the agency. Def. Mot. Ex. 4.
Under regulations promulgated by the Social Security Administration, a “final decision”
is ripe for judicial review only after four steps have occurred: (1) an initial determination; (2)
reconsideration of that determination; (3) a hearing before an administrative law judge; and (4)
review by the Appeals Council. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900(a)(1)-(5), 416.1400(a)(1)-(5).
Because Mr. Ansarullah has not completed those four steps with respect to his appeal, this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate his claim.
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] is
GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

1
I note that, in the section of the complaint where the Claimant is supposed to identify the caption of the
case being appealed, it appears that Mr. Ansarullah wrote “Martinez v. Astrue.” [ECF No. 1]. Although
the handwritten name “Martinez” is somewhat illegible, it certainly does not appear that the word is
“Ansarullah.” To the extent, then, that Mr. Ansarullah seeks to appeal a decision for a wage earner other
than himself, he needs to identify that wage earner by first and last name in his Complaint, and needs to
identify his relationship with that wage earner so as to establish his standing to sue.