# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d Janu ary 23, 2014 * Deci ded Janu ary 27, 2014

Before JOEL M. FLAU M, Circ uit Judge DANIEL A. MANIO N, Circ uit Judge MICHAEL S . KANNE, Circ uit Judge No. 12-3491 THOMAS KARM ATZIS , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MICHAEL HAM ILTON, et al., Defen dants-Appellees

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Central Dis tr i ct of Illi noi s. No. 11-CV-2222 Michael P. McCus key , Judge

. O R D E R Thomas Karmatzi s, an army vet eran, appeals the di smi ssalof hi s su i t agains t the U.S. Depart ment of Veter ans Aff ai rs (“VA”) and eleven VA employees, allegi ng that they v i olated his consti tutional ri ghts by di scontinuing hi s health-c are benefi ts and denyi ng hi m an opport uni ty t o appeal. The di stric t j udge di smi ssed the c omplaint for lack of subject-matt er j uri sdi cti on and deni ed Kar matzi s’s m otion to amend. We affi rm. NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only in acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

After exami ning the par ties ’ brief s and the record, we have concluded that or al * arg ument i s unnecess ary . Thus, the appeal i s submi tte d on the briefsand the recor d. See F E D . R. A P P . P. 34(a)( 2)(C).No. 12-3491 Page 2

In 2009 Kar matzi s un derwent spinal su rg ery at a VA hospi tal and suffered compli cati ons that r equi red r emoval o f a port i on of hi s sm all intestin e and resecti oni ng of hi s colon. He fi led a complaint wi th the VA a y ear lat er seeking compens ator y benefi ts becau se, he ass ert ed, hi s su rg i cal c ompli cati ons were caus ed by the VA’s negli gence. Whi le hi s cl ai m was pending, the VA dis continued hi s health-c are benefi ts becau se he had n ot ser ved t he requi si te t i me in acti ve duty . The VA later also deni ed hi s clai m for compensatory benefi ts, a deni al that K armatzis admini strat i vely appealed, but that appeal is not par t of t hi s cas e. Kar matzi s su ed i n federal court, alleg ing that t he VA di scontinued hi s health-care benefi ts i n retaliati on for filing a clai m for compensati on, and deni ed hi m an oppor tuni ty t o appeal the dis conti nuati on. The di stric t j udge, on the magistrate j udge’s recommendati on, ter minated the case, di smi ssing the complai nt for lack o f subject-matt er j uri sdi cti on. Challenges to individu al vet eran’s benefi ts deci si ons, the di stric t j udge explain ed, are barr ed under the Veter an’s Ju di ci al Review Ac t, see 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). A week later Kar matzi s moved to amend hi s compl aint to clari fy that t he defendants vi olated his due-process rights wh en a VA employee t old hi m that no appeal process w as avai lable to hi m to challenge the dis conti nuati on of benefi ts. The magi strat e judge, appar ently unaware thathe lacked the part i es’ consent to r ule on a di sposi tive matter , see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), deni ed the motion. Echoing the dis tr i ct judge’ s earlier deci si on, the magis tr ate j udge conclu ded that t he court lacked subject-matter jurisdi cti on to rev i ew Karmatzis’s motion to amend becau se that motion, li ke his or i gin al complaint, raised n ot a faci al consti tutional challenge, but rather a challen ge only t o the VA’ s condu ct i n hi s particular case, and he would have to pursue hi s challen ge t hrough t he VA’s appeals process. Kar matzi s appealed, and we remanded the case b ecaus e of the § 636(c) matter and urged the dis tr i ct judge t o r eview the magi strat e judge’ s ruling and resolv e the postj udgment motion to amend the complaint. The di stric t j udge i n turn accepted the magi strat e judge’ s rationale and den i ed the motion. On appeal Kar tmatzis challen ges the r uling that t he di stric t courtlacked subject-matt er j uri sdi cti on under the VJRA ov er his clai ms. H e asserts that hiscomplaint rais ed a faci al consti tutional challenge by contestin g the dis conti nuati on of hi s benefi ts and the unavai labi li ty o f an appeals process.No. 12-3491 Page 3

The VJ RA establi shes the exclusi ve r eview p ro cedure thro ugh whi ch veter ans may challenge the VA’s adjudi cati on of their benefi ts clai ms. See 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). The ci rcui ts unani mously agree t hat the VJRA divests the federal courts of jur i sdi cti on to rev i ew laws ui ts challen gin g in di vidu al vet eran’s benefi ts deci si ons. See id ; Veterans for Common Sen se v. Shin seki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1025 (9th Cir. 2012); Price v. Un ited States , 228 F.3d 420, 421 (D.C. Ci r. 2000); Beamon v. Brown , 125 F.3d 965, 970–71 (6th Cir. 1997) ; Weaver v. United States , 98 F.3d 518, 519–20 (10th Cir. 1996); Hall v. U.S. D ep’t of Veterans’ Affairs , 85 F.3d 532, 534 (11th Cir. 1996); Zuspann v. Brown , 60 F.3d 1156, 1158–59 (5th Ci r. 1995); Sugr ue v. Der winski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Ci r. 1994); Hicks v. Veterans Admi n. , 961 F.2d 1367, 1369–70 (8th Cir. 1992). A veter an may not ci rcumvent these j uri sdi cti onal li mi tations by cl oaking a benefi ts clai m in consti tutional terms. See Veterans for Common Sen se, 678 F.3d at 1023 (collectin g cases)

. The di stric t j udge here pr oper ly concluded that Karmatzis di d not make a faci al consti tutional attack, but i nstead merely was “ch allengi ng the VA’s conduct in hi s particu lar case.” The es senc e of Kar matzi s’s c omplaint i s that the VA er ro neously di scontinued hi s health-c are benefi ts and sh ould have allowed hi m an opport uni ty t o appeal the di scontinuati on. Based on the VA’s allegedly er ro neous acti ons, he seeks damages for the “neg lect[] and compli cati on[s] d ue too [si c] the injur[ies ] from the surger[ies ] and b eing thr own out wi thout medic ation and p ro per medi cal treat ment being set up.” He frames hi s contenti ons (in hi s submi ssi ons to t he di stric t courtand hi s bri ef on appeal) as due process vi olations, b ut federal court s do not acqui re j uri sdi cti on to hear challen ges to benefi ts ruli ngs merely because those ch allenges are couched in consti tutional terms. He i s compl ai ning about the dis conti nuati on of hi s benefi ts, and the VJRA di vests courts of j uri sdi cti on ov er such c lai ms. See 38 U.S.C. § 511. If Kar matzi s wi shed to challenge the benefi ts deci si on, he needed to appeal t hat deci si on fi rst t o the Bo ard of Vete ran’s Appeals. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). But becaus e Kar matzi s fai led to file anappeal wi th the Boar d wi thi n one year of the VA’s deci si on to di scontinue hi s benefi ts, the deci si on became final and c annot now be appealed. Id

. § 7105(b) (1), ( c). And b ecaus e Kar matzi s’s b enefi ts deci si on cannot be appealed, i t would be f

uti le to allo w hi m to amend hi s compl aint. Therefor e, the dis tr i ct court also proper ly deni ed Kar matzi s leave to amend hi s compl aint. Accordi ngly, we AFFIRM the j udgment of the dis tr i ct court.