Theodore Justice v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1525 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1525
THEODORE JUSTICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Matthew James Maddox, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01372-MJM)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 21, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Justice, Appellant Pro Se. James Austin McTigue, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Commissioner of Social
Security.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1525 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Justice appeals the district court’s order denying his request for
preliminary relief and dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Justice v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:24-cv-01372-MJM (D. Md. June 6, 2024). We deny
as moot Justice’s motion to seal the supplement to his informal brief, as that document is
not accessible on this court’s public docket. We dispense with 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
*
We observe that the district court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction over
Justice’s complaint due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See L.N.P. v.
Kijakazi, 64 F.4th 577, 585 (4th Cir. 2023). Upon review, however, we conclude that the
district court nonetheless did not err by dismissing Justice’s complaint for failure to
exhaust. See id. at 586 (explaining that, in appropriate circumstances, affirmative defense
of exhaustion may be reviewed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).
2