In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 17-1081

JAMIE COSENZA,

on behalf of J.M.F., a minor,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NANCY BERRYHILL,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 1:14-cv-01214-SLD-JEH — Sara Darrow, Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED JULY 5, 2017 — DECIDED JULY 6, 2017 —

OPINION ISSUED OCTOBER 12, 2017*

____________________

 * The court initially resolved this appeal by nonprecedential order. The 

order is being reissued as an opinion.
2 No. 17-1081

Before POSNER,** KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. After the Social Security Administration denied her application for disability benefits on behalf of her 

minor son, Jamie Cosenza sought review in the district court. 

The court found error in the administrative law judge’s 

reasoning, remanded the case to the agency for further 

proceedings, and closed the federal case. While the agency 

review still was ongoing, Cosenza filed two motions in the 

closed district court case: one requesting that the court hold 

the Social Security Commissioner in contempt for disobeying its remand order and another asking that summary 

judgment be granted in her favor. The district court rejected 

both arguments and Cosenza appeals. We uphold the lower 

court’s rulings.

This case has a protracted procedural history. Cosenza 

applied in 2011 for disability benefits on behalf of J.M.F., her 

minor son. After a hearing the ALJ determined that J.M.F. 

was not disabled, and the Appeals Council denied her 

request for review. Cosenza sought judicial review in federal 

court and argued that the ALJ was biased, had not fairly 

developed the record, improperly found that her son’s 

autism and Asperger’s syndrome were not “medically 

determinable” impairments, and insufficiently substantiated 

her findings. The district judge adopted a magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation and granted summary judgment for Cosenza. According to the district judge, the ALJ 

 ** Circuit Judge Posner retired on September 2, 2017. He participated in 

this case when it was originally issued as a nonprecedential order, but he 

did not participate in the reissuance of this case as an opinion. See 

28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
No. 17-1081 3

(1) did not separately assess whether J.M.F.’s impairments 

medically or functionally equaled Listing 112.02 (regarding 

organic mental disorders), and (2) did not explain her reliance on an ambiguous exhibit—a report that rated J.M.F.’s 

academic skills numerically without explaining what the 

numbers meant. The court remanded the case under the 

fourth sentence of § 405(g) of the Social Security Act for 

further agency action. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Cosenza ex rel. 

J.M.F. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:14-cv-01214 (C.D. Ill. 

Aug. 11, 2015). Because a sentence-four remand terminates 

the case in the district court, see Richmond v. Chater, 94 F.3d 

263, 267–68 (7th Cir. 1996), the court issued a final judgment 

closing the case.

On remand Cosenza’s case was reassigned to another 

ALJ who conducted a hearing in March 2016. In June 

Cosenza filed a motion in the closed federal case to hold the 

Commissioner in contempt “for not following court ordered 

remand and or for a decision.” In July the ALJ again ruled 

against Cosenza. The ALJ informed Cosenza that she could 

challenge the decision by either requesting review from the 

Appeals Council within 30 days or by filing a civil action 

once the agency’s decision became final. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.1484. If Cosenza opted not to ask the Appeals Council 

for review, the ALJ advised, she could proceed to federal 

court—after giving the Appeals Council 60 days to decide on 

its own accord whether to review the case.

Cosenza did not wait 60 days for the decision to become 

final. Instead she both moved for summary judgment in the 

closed federal case and filed a letter with the Appeals Council requesting that it review the ALJ’s decision. In response 

to the district court filings, the Commissioner filed two 
4 No. 17-1081

motions: one to strike Cosenza’s summary-judgment motion 

on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it 

and another to deny her contempt motion because the 

Commissioner had not violated any court order. And the 

Appeals Council opted to postpone consideration of her 

agency appeal pending the outcome of this civil action. 

On the report and recommendation of a magistrate 

judge, the district court granted the Commissioner’s motion 

to strike the summary-judgment motion. The judge explained that the district court relinquished jurisdiction over 

Cosenza’s case once it had remanded under sentence four of 

§ 405(g). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296–300 (1993); 

Richmond, 94 F.3d at 267–68. And to the extent Cosenza 

wished to challenge the ALJ’s most recent unfavorable 

decision, the administrative appeals process had not yet 

finished (i.e., the record did not reflect that the Appeals 

Council had taken any action) and thus no final decision 

existed for the court to review. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484. As for 

Cosenza’s motion to hold the Commissioner in contempt, 

the judge denied the motion because Cosenza had not 

shown that the Commissioner violated the court’s remand 

order.

On appeal Cosenza first insists that the Commissioner 

violated the remand order by repeating the same analytical 

errors that were the basis of the district court’s remand and 

that the Commissioner therefore should be held in contempt. 

But, as the court explained, the ALJ had not issued an unfavorable decision at the time Cosenza filed her contempt 

motion. And anyway Cosenza’s challenges to the analysis in 

the ALJ’s decision amounted to a request for judicial review, 

for which she must follow the procedures outlined in the 
No. 17-1081 5

statute and regulations and wait for a final decision from the 

agency. See § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484(a). Because the 

Commissioner did not violate any direct command of the 

remand order, the district court did not err in denying 

Cosenza’s contempt motion.

Cosenza next challenges the court’s decision to strike her 

summary-judgment motion on jurisdictional grounds. She 

contends that summary judgment in her favor is warranted 

because the ALJ on remand failed to fix the errors that the 

district court had identified in its remand order. But as the 

district court explained, a district court lacks jurisdiction 

under the Social Security Act to review an ALJ’s unfavorable 

decision until the agency’s decision is final. § 405(g). The 

agency’s decision is not yet final because the Appeals Council has not yet decided whether to take up review of the 

ALJ’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484(b). According to an 

affidavit submitted by an official in the Social Security 

Administration’s Office of Appellate Operations, the 

Appeals Council will not process Cosenza’s agency appeal 

until the current civil action is dismissed. Once the agency 

issues a final decision, Cosenza may pursue judicial review 

by filing a new complaint in the district court.

AFFIRMED.