* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 19 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL J. WILDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-5175 (D.C. No. 97-CV-478-B) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Samuel J. Wilder appeals from an order of the district court dismissing his request for declaratory and injuncti ve relief for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to exhaust his administrative remed ies. We affirm. On March 18, 1997, Mr. Wilder was notified that his eligibility for food stamps would expire April 30, 1997, and that he nee ded to reapply by April 15, 1997. He returned his application May 7, 1997. Co nsequently, no redetermination of his eligibility could be made until after his benefits had expired. Mr. Wilder commenced this action May 16, 1997, seeking to have the federal court order defendant to comply with federa l guidelines in evaluating his application for food stamps. Defendant denied Mr. Wilder’s application May 20, 1997. Defendant held that Mr. Wilder had failed to comply with new regulations which mandate that able-bodied adults without depen dents comply with work requirements to be eligible to participate in the f ood stamp program for longer than three months during any thirty-six month perio d. SeeOkla. Stat. tit. 56, § 241.3(A). Mr. Wilder was notified of his right t o appeal that decision. The district court dismissed the action both becaus e Mr. Wilder had not exhausted his administrative remedies and because the federal court had no jurisdiction over this action. See, e.g. , Okla. Stat. tit. 56, § 168. Mr. Wilder appeals arguing that this ruling was in error. He also contends the requirement-3-

of exhaustion is discretionary, his administrative remedies are ineffective, and defendant unduly delayed ruling on his application. Mr. Wilder failed to comply with the regulations. His failure does not amount to undue delay on the part of defendant. Mr . Wilder should have followed the administrative appellate procedures if he disagreed with defendant’s denial of his reapplication for food stamps. Feder al courts do not have jurisdiction to review administrative decisions of state agencies. See Bush v. Real Estate Comm’n , No. 93-1196, 1993 WL 523198, at *1 (10th Cir. Dec . 16, 1993); Gale v. Moore , 587 F. Supp. 1491, 1494 (W.D. Mo. 1984) (federal court “does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of state administrative agencies to determine if they are based upon correc t information.”), aff’d, as modified on other grounds , 763 F.2d 341 (8th Cir. 1985). Further, Mr. Wilde r has not shown that the regulations and procedures s et in place by Oklahoma violate the purpose of the Food Stamp Program Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2011; see also , id. § 2020. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge