Rex Harris v. Carolyn Colvin , 624 F. App'x 92 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1698
REX HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00664-WO-JLW)
Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 7, 2015
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rex Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa G. Smoller, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Rex Harris appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner’s award of benefits on Harris’ application for
supplemental security income. Harris alleges that his prior
applications should have been reopened and that the Commissioner
owed him additional back payments. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error.
“[N]either the Administrative Procedure Act nor 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts
to review the Secretary’s refusal to reopen a prior
determination.” Hall v. Chater, 52 F.3d 518, 520 (4th Cir.
1995) (citing Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 102 (1977)); see
also 20 C.F.R. § 416.1403(a)(5) (2015) (denial of request to
reopen SSI determination not subject to judicial review). Any
issue concerning the correct amount of back payments to which
Harris may be entitled was not properly presented in district
court. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that Harris
has exhausted his administrative remedies or that the
Commissioner has issued a final decision on the matter of any
back payments to which he may be entitled. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) (2012) (granting judicial review over final decision of
Commissioner made after hearing). Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order and judgment. Harris v. Colvin, No.
1:12-cv-00664-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. June 18, 2015). We dispense with
3
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4