UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ CONRAD CZAJKOWSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER, SSA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 23-1285 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV -00900-LTB-SBP) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , BALDOCK , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Conrad Czajkowski, proceeding pro se , appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his co mplaint for review of a Soci al Security Administration (“SSA”) decision. Exercising jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 27, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 23-1285 Document: 010111022829 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 12 I. BACKGROUND In April 2023, Czajkowski filed a compla int for review of a Social Security disability benefits decision w ith the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. His initial complaint did not u tilize the district court’s approved complaint form and his second amended complaint was incomplete. In June 2023, the court directed Czajkowski to cure the filing deficiencies, reminde d him that he needed to provide a copy of the SSA’s final decision regarding his claim, and ordered him to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Czajkowski filed a third ame nded complaint but did not attach a copy of the final agency decision. He did not respond to the show -cause order. Czajkowski alleged that he was approved to receive $797 per month in Social Security disability insuran ce benefits beginning in June 2022. The first benefits payment was deposited in his bank account on June 8, 2022. However, on July 13, 2022, he attempted to access the second benefits paymen t and found that it had not been deposited. He called an SSA office in Washington, D.C. about the missing payment and was informed that it should have been deposited. Later that day, Czajkowski wa s arrested for a parole vi olation, and he has been detained since that time. Cz ajkowski asserts that he has not violated any condition of his parole or been convicted of a crime that would result in parole revocation. He has written to multiple SSA offices, inquiring about the missing disability insurance benefits, with no response. He has not received a decision from the SSA suspending or terminating his benefits. Appellate Case: 23-1285 Document: 010111022829 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 23 For relief, Czajkowski asked the distri ct court to order the SSA Commissioner to pay him disability insuran ce benefits dating back to July 2022. The district court dismissed without prejudice Czajkowski’s th ird amended complaint, explaining that without a final agency deci sion it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Czajkowski timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Mukantagara v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 67 F.4th 1113, 1115 (10t h Cir. 2023). Czajkowski represents himself, so we c onstrue his filings liberally. Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10t h Cir. 1991). Under the Social Security Act, federal district courts ha ve jurisdiction to review “any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added). “At the same time, Congress made clear that review would be available onl y ‘as herein provided’ —that is, only under the terms of § 405(g).” Smith v. Berryhill , 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1772 (2019) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(h)). The applicable regul ations provide that the SSA makes a final decision only after a disabili ty claimant has completed four steps: (1) initial determination; (2) reconsider ation; (3) a hearing before an administrative law judge; and (4) a request for review by the Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a). Appellate Case: 23-1285 Document: 010111022829 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 34 Here, the district court in formed Czajkowski of the n ecessity of a final agency decision and gave him ample opportunity to provide one. On appeal, Czajkowski asserts that he has “[n]ever received any type of decision” from the SSA “for ceasing [his] payments after only [one] month of r eceiving them.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2. He further asserts that the SSA “has not sent [him] a ny information regarding why [his] payments ceased befo re [he] was arrested.” Id. at 3 (capitalization and emphasis omitted). It is therefore undisputed that Czajkowski does not have a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.” 42 U.S. C. § 405(g). Moreover, it seems that Czajkowski has not completed th e steps required for him to obtain a final decision from the SSA. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a). Consequently, we conclude the district court correctly dismissed Czajkowski’s amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION We affirm the district court’s j udgment dismissing Czajkowski’s amended complaint. We grant his mo tion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees.

Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 23-1285 Document: 010111022829 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 4