Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0418-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Paul CELESTINE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-20004
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 15, 2012.
    Edward Paul Celestine, Houston, TX, pro se.
    Scott Thomas Morris, Esq,, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Region VI, Dallas, TX, Samuel Glenn Longoria, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Edward Paul Celes-tine, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss Mr. Celestine’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 11, 2011, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration informed Mr. Cel-estine that his Social Security Income benefits would cease effective April 1, 2011. Mr. Celestine sought reconsideration, and the agency affirmed its initial determination. Mr. Celestine then sought a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, but subsequently withdrew that request. On September 18, 2011, he commenced a civil action in the district court.

A claimant may only obtain judicial review of a case arising under the Social Security Act if he has first exhausted all available administrative remedies. This requires the plaintiff to follow a four-step process that includes an initial determination, reconsideration, a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and review by an Appeals Council. Because Mr. Celes-tine failed to exhaust these administrative remedies when he withdrew his hearing request, the district court correctly concluded that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (allowing an individual to obtain judicial review of “any -final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security”) (emphasis added); see also Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 617-18, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984).
     
      
      . See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a) (explaining that a decision by the Social Security Administrative only becomes final once the four-step process has been completed); see also Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 767, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977).