Rex Harris v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 15-1698 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1698 REX HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee, and KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HUMAN SERVICES, SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00664-WO-JLW) Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 7, 2015 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rex Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. Lisa G. Smoller, Special Boston, Massachusetts, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Rex Harris appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s award of benefits supplemental security income. on Harris’ application for Harris alleges that his prior applications should have been reopened and that the Commissioner owed him additional back payments. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. “[N]either the Administrative Procedure Act nor 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts to review the Secretary’s determination.” refusal to reopen a prior Hall v. Chater, 52 F.3d 518, 520 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 102 (1977)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.1403(a)(5) (2015) (denial of request to reopen SSI determination not subject to judicial review). Any issue concerning the correct amount of back payments to which Harris may be entitled was not properly presented in district court. has Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that Harris exhausted his administrative remedies or that the Commissioner has issued a final decision on the matter of any back payments to which he may be entitled. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012) (granting judicial review over final decision of Commissioner made after hearing). district court’s order and Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Harris 1:12-cv-00664-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. June 18, 2015). 3 v. Colvin, No. We dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before contentions this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
