Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01698/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01698-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Appellee
Rex Harris
Appellant
Kathleen Sebelius

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.

Appeal: 15-1698 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/07/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1698 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/07/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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 

Appeal: 15-1698 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/07/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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

Appeal: 15-1698 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/07/2015 Pg: 4 of 4