Filing 10

OPINION/ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 5/1/17. (DD, ) N/M

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY REGINALD REEVES, Civil Action No.: 2:15-cv-7974 (CCC) Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. CECCHI, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff Reginald Reeves (“Plaintiff’) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C § 405(g). ECF No. 9. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. No oral argument was heard. See fed. R. Civ. P. 78. for the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted. II. BACKROUND On November 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed for supplemental security income, alleging disability as of that date. ECF No. 9 at 1. On June 16, 2009, Plaintiffs application was granted. Id. On February 25, 2014, it was determined that Plaintiff was no longer disabled as of January 1, 2014. Id. After Plaintiff requested reconsideration of this determination, a Disability Hearing Officer issued a decision on October 25, 2015 finding Plaintiff was not disabled. Id. Plaintiff was sent a Notice of Reconsideration which informed Plaintiff that if he disagreed with the decision, he had 1 the right to ask for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“AU”). Id. There is no indication that Plaintiff requested a hearing before an AU or attempted to appeal the decision of the Disability Hearing Officer. See Declaration of Kathie Hartt, ECF No 9-1 at 3. Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on November 9, 2015. ECF No. 1. On March 31, 2016, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. III. LEGAL STANDARD This Court has jurisdiction to review claims arising under the Social Security Act, only to the extent provided in Sections 205(g) and (h) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §S 405(g) and (h). Section 405(h) states: No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Commissioner of Social Security or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). Section 405(g) provides, in relevant part: Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added). See also Casey v. Comm ‘r ofSoc. Sec., No. 1 3-5657(NLH), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141502, at *24 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2015). IV. DISCUSSION Here, Defendant alleges that because Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). The Court agrees. As Plaintiff never sought a hearing before an AU or an Appeals Council review of the february 25, 2014 decision, Plaintiff never exhausted his administrative remedies or obtained a judicially reviewable “final decision after a hearing.” 20 C.F.R. §S 2 404.900(a)(5), 416.1400(a)(5). Because Plaintiff did not exhaust the administrative process after this decision, any claims pertaining to that decision must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Perez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-5551 (CCC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82954, at *13 (D.N.J. June 27, 2016). V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, IT IS on this I day of , 2017, ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9)is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this matter. SO ORDERED. CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?