A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

ESTA TE O F BE RN A D ETT E F. L E GO, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. M I C H A E L O . L E A V I T T , Secr et aryof t he D epart m entof H eal t h and H um an S ervi ces, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 1498 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - c v - 0 1 2 6 0 - J L K)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , M UR P HY and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. T he Est at e of Ber nadett e Lego ( “the Est at e”) appea l s fr om t he di s tr i ct c o u rt’s d e c isio n g ra n tin g th e m o tio n to d ism iss filed b yM ich a e l O . L e a v itt , Secr et aryof the D epart m entof H eal th and H um an Servi ces ( “the Secr et ary ”) , and-2-

d is m is s in g th e E s ta te ’s c o m p la in t fo r l a c k o f s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . Ex e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m. B ackgr ound In A ug ust20 01 , B ernadett e L ego , a reci pientof M edicar e P artC ben efi t s, w as admi t t ed t o Por t erA dvent i s tH os pi t al i n D enver , C ol or ado. A tthe end of Sept ember , M r . R obertL ego, an att orneyand M r s . L ego’ s hus band, r ece i ved not i ce thati f M r s . L ego cont i nued hers t ayatPor t er , s he w oul d no l ongerbe cover ed byM edi car e and w oul d be r es pons i bl e forpaym entof al l cos t s of serv ices. T h is de term ination w as b ase d o n the M ed icare re v iew p rog ram ’s as s es s m entt hatacut e hos pi t al car e w as no l ongerm edi cal l ynece s s ary . M r . L ego s oughtr econs i der at i on of the dec i s i on and i tw as deni ed. M r s . L ego r emai ned at Por t erunt i l N ovember9. I n D ece m ber , M r . L ego t i m el yr eques t ed a he ar i ng b e fo re a n A d m in is tr a tiv e L a w J u d g e (A L J ) t o re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f c o v e ra g e . A ft erM r s . L ego’ s death i n J une 2002, M r . L ego cont i nued the admi ni s tr at i ve a p p e a l o n b e h a lf

o f th e E s ta te . O n M ay30, 2003, M r . L ego appe ar ed ata hea r i ng. T he A L J ’ s deci s i on r efl ect s t hat“M r . L ego t es t i fi ed thathe di d notknow w hya hea r i ng w as bei ng hel d as i tw as hi s under s t andi ng thatther e w as a ze r o bal ance on the ac countand t h a tn o c o l l e c t i o n a c t i o n s h a d b e e n u n d e r t a k e n . ” Apl t . App . a t2 1 . Th e ALJ adj our ned the hea r i ng t o cont actthe pr ovi der , C entur a H eal th, i n or dert o cl ar i fy-3-

th e m a tte r. Id. T he A L J l earned thatthere w as an ou t st and i ng am ou nt i n ex cess o f $ 1 4 4 ,0 0 0 a n d th a t it w a s a n a c tiv e c o lle c tio n a c c o u n t. Id. A ft ert he A L J obt ai ned thi s cl ar i fi cat i on, the A L J ’ s s t aff cont act ed M r . L ego t o r es chedul e the hea r i ng. I n Sept ember2004, anotherhear i ng w as s chedul ed forN ovember22, 2004. M r . L ego cont act ed the A L J ’ s offi ce by t el ephone on N ovember19 t o i nform them t hathe w as i l l and r eques t ed a cont i nuance of the hea r i ng. A ft erM r . L ego’ s phone ca l l , the A L J i ndi cat ed that h e w o u ld n o t con side r a c o n ti n u an ce u n less h e c o u ld sp ea k w ith M r. L eg o ’s p h y sic ian re g a rd in g M r. L e g o ’s m e d ica l co n d iti o n . T h e A L J d id sp e a k w ith M r . L ego’ s phy s i ci an, al t hough M r . L ego w as notperm i t t ed t o par t i ci pat e i n the p h o n e c a ll. O n t he dayof the hea r i ng, N ovember22, M r . L ego fi l ed an “ E m er gency M ot i on t o C ont i nue H ear i ng and forE xpedi t ed D et erm i nat i on of Such C ont i nuance . ” R epr es ent at i ves forC entur a H eal th appea r ed atthe hea r i ng and o p p o s e d t h e mo t i o n fo ra c o n t i n u a n c e . M r . L e g o d i d n o ta p p e a r . On D ece m ber29, t he A L J i s s ued a de ci s i on deny i ng the r eques tfora cont i nuance and det erm i ni ng t hat“good ca us e” di d notexi s tforM r . L ego’ s fai l ur e t o appea r a t th e h e a ri n g . Id. at23. B eca us e M r . L ego had notes t abl i s hed good ca us e for notappea r i ng att he hea r i ng, t he A L J di s m i s s ed the r eques tfora hea r i ng, w hi ch le f t th e e a rl ie r d e te rm in a tio n o f n o n -c o v e ra g e in e ffe c t.-4-

M r. L eg o so u g h t r ev iew o f th e A L J’s d ec isi o n thro u g h the M ed icare A ppeal s C ounci l ( M A C ) . I n M ay2005, the M A C deni ed the r eques t , concl udi ng t hatt her e w as no l egal bas i s t o r evi ew the A L J ’ s deci s i on. I n J ul y2005, M r . L ego fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n di s tr i ctcourton behal f of the Est at e s eeki ng j ud i ci al revi ew of the A L J’ s deci si on . T he S ecret aryfi l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss, arg u ing that the d istri ct co u rtlack ed su bject m att er jurisdicti o n o v er the E stat e’s compl ai nt . T he di s t r i ctcourtgr ant ed the mot i on and di s m i s s ed the ca s e. T he E s ta te a p p e a le d . D i s cus s i on T he Est at e as s ert s t hatt he di s tr i ctcour terr ed by( 1) fai l i ng t o pr ovi de fac tual fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons of l aw i n vi ol at i on of Fed. R . C i v. P. 52 w hen t he di s t r i ctcour tent er ed the or derdi s m i s s i ng the compl ai nt ; and ( 2) gr ant i ng t he Secr et ary ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. W e r evi ew de novo the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of the Est at e’ s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ect m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . See Har l i ne v. D r ug E nf or cem entA dm i n. , 148 F. 3d 1199, 1 2 0 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).

R ul e 52 T he Est at e ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcour tvi ol at ed R ul e 52( a) bynot pr ovi di ng fac tual fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons of l aw w hen the di s tr i ctcour tent er ed i t s or dergr ant i ng t he Secr et ary ’ s Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he-5-

E s t at e, how ever , pr ovi des an i ncompl et e ci t at i on t o R ul e 52 ther eby m i s r epr es ent i ng t he s cope of t he rul e. I n i t s br i ef, i ts t at es , “Fed. R . C i v. P. 52( a) p ro v id e s th a t a c o u rt ‘sh a ll fin d th e fa c ts s p e c iallya n d sta te s e p a ra telyits concl us i ons of l aw t her eon . . . . ’ ” A pl t . B r . at14. T he Est at e negl ect s t o i ncl ude in th is e x c e rp t an im p o rta n t an d h ig h lyre lev a n t p o rtio n o f th e ru le, w h ich sta tes :

“ F i n d i n g s o f

fa c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w ar e unnec es s ar

y on dec is i ons of

m ot i ons underR ul e 12 or56 oranyot herm ot i on exce ptas pr ovi ded i n s ubdi vi s i on ( c) of th is ru le.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 2 (a ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). S u b d iv isio n (c ) d o e s n o t ap p ly h e re b e c a u s e it r e la te s to p ro c e e d in g s in v o lv in g a tr ia l w ith o u t a ju ry. See F e d . R. C i v. P. 52( c) . T he di s t r i ctcourtw as ther efor e notr equi r ed byR ul e 52 t o pr ovi de fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw w hen i tgr ant ed the Secr et ary ’ s 12( b) ( 1) m o tio n to d is m is s . M o re o v e r, w e fin d th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r su fficie n t to e n a b le u s to conductourappel l at e r evi ew . I n the Secr et ary ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , he ar gued that t he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on beca us e ther e w as no fi nal deci s i on aft era hea r i ng as r equi r ed by42 U . S. C . § 405( g) and thatthe Est at e had n o t alle g e d a c o lo ra b le c o n stitu tio n a l cla im su c h th a t th e E sta te’ s fa ilu re to exhaus ti t s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es s houl d be exc us ed. I n the or der , the di s tr i ct c o u r tg r a n t e d t h e mot i o n t o d i s mi s s a n d th e n s t a t e d : “ Th i s c a s e i s DI SM I SS ED fo r la c k o f

su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . P lain tiff fa iled to e x h a u st a ll admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . ” A pl t . A pp. at126. G i ven thatthe di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed-6-

t he mot i on t o di s m i s s and di s m i s s ed the ca s e on the bas i s ar gued forbythe Secr et aryi n hi s m ot i on, t her e w as no need forfur therdi s cus s i on bythe di s tr i ct c o u rt to e n a b le th is c o u rt to re v ie w th e o rd e r. J ur i s di ct i on T he Est at e ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n di s m i s s i ng i t s compl ai nt forl ack of

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on beca us e i t s compl ai ntfal l s w i thi n the ju d icia l re v iew lan g u a g e o f 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ). S e c tio n 4 0 5 (g ) is a p p lica b le to t he r evi ew of bene fi tdeci s i ons on M edi car e+C hoi ce Pl ans , s ubs t i tut i ng the S ec retaryfo r th e C o m m issi o n er o f th e S o cial S ec u ri tyA d m inistrati o n w h ere § 4 0 5 (g ) r e fe rs to th e C o m m is s io n e r. See 42 U . S. C . § 1395w - 22( g) ( 5) . T he pr ovi s i on s t at es i n r el evantpart : “A nyi ndi vi dual , aft eranyfi nal deci s i on of the [Secr et ary ] m ade a ft era hea r i ng t o w hi ch he w as a party. . . m ayobt ai n a r evi ew of s uch dec i s i on bya ci vi l act i on . . . . ” Id. § 4 0 5 (g ). H er e, t he A L J di s m i s s ed the Est at e’ s r eques tfora hea r i ng bas ed on 20 C . F . R . § 4 16 . 14 57 (b) (1) . U nd er § 416 . 41 57 (b) (1) (i ), an A L J m aydis m i ss a req u est fo r a h ea ri n g if: (1) n eith er the p lai n ti ff n o r th eir repre sen tat ive a p p ea rs at th e ti m e a n d p lace set fo r th e h ea ri n g ; ( 2 ) th e p lai n ti ff h as b ee n n o ti fied b efo re t he t i m e s etfort he hea r i ng t hatt he r eques tfora hea r i ng m aybe di s m i s s ed w i t houtfur t hernot i ce forfai l ur e t o appea r ; and ( 3) good caus e has notbeen found fort he pl ai nt i ff’ s fai l ur e t o appea r . T he A L J concl uded thatthe Est at e had not demonstr at ed good ca us e fori t s fai l ur e t o appea ratthe hea r i ng. T hi s l eftthe-7-

ear l i erdet erm i nat i on of non- cover age i n effectand no hea r i ng w as hel d on the m e ri ts o f

th e E s ta te ’s c la im re g a rd in g th e d e n ia l o f M e d ic a re b e n e fits . I n C ali f an o v. Sa nd ers , t he Supr eme C our thel d that§ 205( g) ( l at ercodi fi ed a s § 4 0 5 (g )) “ c le a rl ylim its ju d ic ia l r e v ie w to a p a rt ic u la r t yp e o f a g e n c ya c tio n , a

‘ fi nal deci s i on of the Secr et arym ade a ft era hea r i ng. ’ ” 430 U . S. 99, 108 ( 1977) ( quot i ng § 205( g) ) . A l t hough C al i f ano i nvol ved a di ffe r enttype of pr ocee di ng–a pet i t i on t o r eopen a pr i orfi nal deci s i on–the Fi fth C i r cui tappl i ed C al i f ano t o a cas e thati s vi r tual l yi dent i cal t o the ca s e her e. I n B r andyburg v. Sul l i van , 959 F. 2 d 5 5 5 , 5 5 6 - 5 7 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) , th e p l a i n t i ff r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g wi th a n ALJ aft erhi s appl i cat i on fors uppl ement al s ecur i tyi ncome di s abi l i tybenef i t s w as deni ed i ni t i al l yand on r econs i der at i on. H i s hear i ng w as r es chedul ed tw i ce. Fi ve day s befor e the hea r i ng w as s chedul ed t o t ake pl ace , pl ai nt i ff’ s att or neyr eques t ed a c o n tin u a n c e . N e ith e r p la in tiff n o r h is a tto rn e ya p p e a re d a t th e h e a ri n g . Subse quent l y , t he A L J ent er ed an or derdi s m i s s i ng the r eques tfora hea r i ng bas ed on hi s fi ndi ng t hatpl ai nt i ff ha d fai l ed t o appea ratthe hea r i ng w i thoutgood c a u se . P lain tiff

so u g h t re v iew o f

th e A L J’s d ism iss a l, bu t th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il deni ed r evi ew . Pl ai nt i ff then fi l ed an a ct i on i n fede r al di s tr i ctcourt . D efe ndant fi l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss, argui ng that the co urtl acked j uri sdi ct i on becau se pl ai nt i ff ha d fai l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es and ther e had be en no fin al de cisi o n o f th e S ec retaryw ith in the m ea n ing o f § 4 0 5 (g). T h e d istri ct co u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n . T h e F if th C irc u it affirm e d , n o tin g th a t C al i f ano e x p licitly-8-

hel d “that§ 405( g) onl yauthor i zes j udi ci al r evi ew w hen ther e i s a hea r i ng. ” Id. a t 5 6 1 . M o re o v e r, th e c o u rt w e n t o n to e x p lain th a t ita n d o th e r c irc u its h a d h e ld th a t d istric t co u rts la c k ju risd ictio n to re v iew o th e r typ e s o f p ro c e d u ra l d ism iss a ls under§ 416. 1457 and thata di s m i s s al forfai l ur e t o appea rata hea r i ng s houl d be tr e a te d th e s a m e w a y . Id. A ccor di ngl y , the Fi fth C i r cui thel d “thatthe di s tr i ct cour tw as corr ecti n i t s hol di ng t hatthe A L J ’ s di s m i s s al of [pl ai nt i ff’ s hear i ng] r eques tw as nota ‘ fi nal deci s i on’ s ubj ectt o j udi ci al r evi ew unders ect i on 405( g) . ” Id . a t 5 6 2 . R el y i ng on t he l anguage of § 405( g) and the ca s es r efe r ence d above, the Secr et ary ’ s pos i t i on i s t hatt he di s tr i ctcour tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overt he Est at e’ s compl ai ntbeca us e “ther e w as no fi nal deci s i on of t h e S e c r e t a r y af

t era hea r i ng. ” A pl ee. B r . at16. T he Est at e di s agr ees , ar gui ng t hat i t s com plai nt fal l s w i t hin the judi ci al revi ew l ang uag e of § 40 5(g) because th e re w e re tw o h e a rin g s b e fo re th e A L J e n ter e d its d ism iss a l– th e im p ro m p tu te le p h o n e h e a ri n g w ith M r. L e g o ’s d o c to r a n d th e N o v e m b e r 2 2 h e a ri n g . T h e A L J ’s p h o n e c o n v e rs a tio n w ith M r. L e g o ’s d o c to r w a s n o t a h e a ri n g . I tw as s i m pl ya conve r s at i on betw een the A L J and M r . L ego’ s doct orconce rni ng M r . L ego’ s al l eged medi cal condi t i on and the nec es s i tyfora cont i nuance . A s for t he N ovember22 hear i ng, al t hough C entur a appe ar ed forthe hea r i ng, M r . L ego, t he Est at e’ s r epr es ent at i ve, di d notappea r . A s i n B rand ybu rg , ther e w as no m er i t s hear i ng t hatw oul d fal l w i thi n the meani ng of § 405( g) and ther efor e the-9-

d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s c o rr e c t in d is m is s in g th e c o m p la in t fo r l a c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n . M o re o v e r, th e A L J’s d ism iss a l w a s a p ro c e d u ra l o n e a n d , as th e c o u rt n o ted in B rand ybu rg , di s t r i ctcour t s l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew an A L J ’ s pr ocedur al d is m is s a l u n d e r § 4 1 6 .1 4 5 7 . See B rand ybu rg , 959 F. 2d at561- 62. T hi s pr ovi des a n a d d itio n a l b a s is fo r a ffir m in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n . Fi nal l y , t he Est at e ar gues thateven i f C al i f ano a n d i t s p r o g e n yi n s o me m e a s u re s u p p o rt th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l fo r l a c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n , C al i

f ano pr ovi des an exc ept i on perm i t t i ng fede r al cour t s t o r evi ew cons t i tut i onal ch all en g es. In o rde r t o b e e n ti tl ed to jurisdicti o n u n d er this ex ce p ti o n , h o w ev er, t he Est at e mustal l ege a “col or abl e cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . ” C al i f ano , 42 0 U. S. a t 1 0 9 ; see also Nelson v. Sec’ y of Health & Hum an Servs. , 927 F. 2d 1109, 1111 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); B rand ybu rg , 959 F. 2d at562. “A cons t i tut i onal cl ai m i s not col or abl e i f i tcl ear l yappea r s t o be i m m at er i al and made s ol el yforthe purpos e of obt ai ni ng j ur i s di ct i on or[] i s w hol l yi ns ubs t ant i al orfr i vol ous . ” Hoye v . Sul l i van , 9 8 5 F .2 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 1 -9 2 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T he Est at e’ s compl ai ntcont ai ns the fol l ow i ng al l egat i on: P lain tiff is a lso e n tit led to re lief b e c a u se th e p ro c e e d in g s p u rsu a n t to w hi ch the O r derw as ent er ed ( i ncl udi ng ( I ) the ent i r e pr ocedur al hi s t or yr es pect i ng t he s et t i ng of a he ar i ng befor e the A L J , and ( i i ) the ci r cumst ance s , begi nni ng on N ovember19, 2004 w i th L ego’ s i ni t i al n o tific a tio n to th e A L J’s o ffice th a t h is illn e ss w o u ld p re v e n t h is att en d an ce at th e N o v em b er H ea ri n g , an d cu lm inating in the O rde r) deni ed Pl ai nt i ff i t s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of due pr oces s , i ncl udi ng r i ght s t o pr operand t i m el ynot i ce a nd hear i ng w i th r es pectt o r evi ew of both t he Fi r s tR evi ew D eci s i on and the R econs i der at i on D eci s i on,-10-

w i t h r es pect[t o] t he N ovemberH ear i ng, and al s o w i th r es pectt o the O rde r. A p lt. A p p . at 1 2 -1 3 . A lth o u g h th e E sta te m a d e th e c o n c lu so rya lleg a tio n th a t it w as “deni ed i t s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of due pr oces s , i ncl udi ng r i ght s t o pr operand t i m el ynot i ce a nd hear i ng, ” id . at13, i tfai l ed t o al l ege fact s t o s uppor tthat a lle g a tio n . F o r e x a m p le , M r. L e g o h a s n o t a lle g e d a n yv io la tio n s o f § 4 1 6 .1 4 5 7 . H e has notal l eged ( 1) t hathe w as pr es entatthe hea r i ng; ( 2) thathe di d not r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f

t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s i f

h e fa i l e d t o a p p e a r ; o r( 3 ) th a tth e ALJ fa ile d to m a k e a g o o d c a u s e fin d in g fo r h is fa ilu re to a p p e a r. See § 4 1 6 .1 4 5 7 (b )( 1 )( i) . W i t h r es pectt o anycl ai m the Est at e mayhave thatthe A L J ’ s cons i der at i on of i t s r eques tfora cont i nuance vi ol at ed i t s due pr oces s r i ght s , the Est at e has not i dent i fi ed anyauthor i t yt hates t abl i s hes thati thad a c ons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed r i ghtt o have a hear i ng on i t s r eques tfora cont i nuance . R el y i ng on Mathew s v. E ldr i dge , 424 U . S. 319, 333 ( 1976) , the Est at e ar gues thati tw as ent i t l ed t o a h e a rin g o n th e c o n tin u a n c e w h e re M r. L e g o w a s p re se n t w h e n th e A L J s p o k e w ith hi s doct or , w her e M r . L ego coul d ar gue befor e the A L J bas ed on the evi dence , and w her e M r . L ego coul d t hen r ece i ve a r ecor d of the pr ocee di ngs . A l though t he E s t at e ci t es t o Ma th e ws , i tp r o v i d e s n o a n a l y s i s a s t o h o w Ma th e ws appl i es t o t he E stat e’s req u est fo r a c o n ti n u an ce , o ther tha n to state th at un d er Ma th e ws “due pr oces s r equi r es an oppor tuni t yt o be hea r d ata meani ngful t i m e and i n a-11-

m e a n in g f

u l m a n n e r.” A p lt. B r. at 2 2 ; se e a lso id . a t 2 5 . A s th e S e c re tar yp o in ts out , how ever , i n or derfort he Est at e t o benef i tfr om the Ma th e ws decis i on , i tm ust es t abl i s h t hati t“had a cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed p rop e rty in ter e st i n havi ng a f u ll-b lo w n h e a rin g o n th e c o n tin u a n c e re q u e st.” A p lee . B r. at 2 3 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s e e a ls o Ma th e ws , 424 U . S. at333 ( “Thi s C our thas cons i s t ent l yhel d t hat s om e form of hea r i ng i s r equi r ed befor e an i ndi vi dual i s fi nal l ydepr i ved of a prop ert y i nter est .” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )). T h e re is n o th in g in th e E sta te’ s c o m p lain t, i t s r es pons e t o t he mot i on t o di s m i s s , ori t s appel l at e br i efs thati dent i fi es the “pr oper t yi nt er es t ” thati tw as depr i ved of w hen the A L J di d nothol d a hea r i ng on its re q u e s t fo r a c o n tin u a n c e . G i ven the l ack of

fac tual orl egal s uppor tforthe Est at e’ s cons t i tut i onal al l egat i ons , w e conc l ude thati tdi d notr ai s e a c ol or abl e cons t i tut i onal cl ai m and t hatt he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s the compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ect m a tter ju risd ictio n w a s c o rre c t. A c c o rd in g ly , the ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt is AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge