Case Name: Raymond LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-02
Citations: 536 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 12-15689
Parties: Raymond LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 700–700

Head Matter:
Raymond LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-15689.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed Aug. 2, 2013.
Raymond Lee, Mesquite, NV, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raymond Lee appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action challenging the Social Security Administration's determination of the onset date of his disability. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Lee neither obtained a final decision before filing the action, nor stated a colorable constitutional claim. See Subia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 264 F.3d 899, 901 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining that the Social Security Act limits judicial review to final decisions unless there is a colorable constitutional claim); Matlock v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 492, 493 (9th Cir.1990) (the denial of an untimely petition for review is not final decision).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.