Clarence Jackson v. Michael Astrue, No. 11-3171 (7th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted March 14, 2012* Decided March 30, 2012 Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge     No. 11 3171 CLARENCE JACKSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,  Defendant Appellee.                  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 10 CV 2114 Harold A. Baker, Judge. O R D E R After successfully appealing an ALJ s finding that he was not disabled, Clarence Jackson filed this lawsuit seeking a decade s worth of Social Security benefits, including proceeds that the agency had deducted to cover previous overpayments. The district court *  After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 11 3171 Page 2 granted the Commissioner s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Jackson had not exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to challenging the ruling on the deductions. The court further noted that Jackson s complaint was untimely in that it had not been filed within 60 days of the Appeals Council s favorable decision.  Jackson appeals but his appellate brief does not address the district court s grounds for dismissal. Although Jackson asserts that the court s decision  constituted restraint on liberty activity,  he does not explain how the court erred in concluding that dismissal was appropriate. And although we construe pro se filings liberally, even uncounseled litigants must present arguments supported by citations to the record and legal authority. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 46 (7th Cir. 2001).  DISMISSED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.