REEVES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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