Victoria Phillips v. SSA, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsVictoria Phillips v. SSA, 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1190
VICTORIA PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate
Judge. (1:12-cv-01441-SAG)
Submitted:
July 15, 2013
Decided:
August 9, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Victoria Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.
Alex Gordon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oklahoma
resident
Victoria
Phillips
appeals
the
magistrate judges orders 1 dismissing her civil action for lack
of
subject
matter
Plaintiff
jurisdiction
Clarification
to
and
Court
denying
her
self-styled
Jurisdiction,
which
we
construe as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend
judgment.
Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978).
The magistrate judge dismissed Phillips action with prejudice.
We affirm as modified.
In
her
action
filed
in
the
district
of
Maryland,
Phillips alleged that, following an injury, the Social Security
Administration
approved
her
application
for
workers
compensation benefits but never paid those benefits to her.
She
sought enforcement of an alleged decision by the Commissioner of
Social Security approving the payment of benefits.
In response,
the Social Security Administration moved to transfer venue to
the district of Oklahoma, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 405(g). 2
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the
magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C.A. 636(c)(1) (West 2006 &
Supp. 2013).
2
Section 405(g) provides in relevant part:
Any individual, after any final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing
to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in
controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a
civil action commenced within sixty days after the
(Continued)
2
The Social Security Administration maintained that Phillips had
been recently denied supplemental security income under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act.
The
magistrate
judge
denied
Administrations motion to transfer venue.
the
Social
Security
The magistrate judge
also construed Phillips allegations as a claim for workers
compensation
benefits
satisfy
amount-in-controversy
the
and
determined
1332 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013).
that
Phillips
requirement
of
28
did
not
U.S.C.A.
Accordingly, the magistrate
judge dismissed the action with prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
After review of the record, we agree that the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Phillips
claim.
In
essence,
Phillips
and
the
Social
Security
Administration seek clarification over the same controversy: the
payment
of
Social
Security
Social Security to Phillips.
benefits
by
the
Commissioner
of
The parties differ, however, as to
the relevant time frame for when such a determination was made.
mailing to him of notice of such decision or within
such further time as the Commissioner of Social
Security may allow. Such action shall be brought in
the district court of the United States for the
judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or
has his principal place of business . . . .
42 U.S.C. 405(g).
Because the parties essentially seek to review alleged decisions
made by the Commissioner of Social Security, jurisdiction of
this case is governed by 405(g).
Phillips has not alleged
that she either resides in Maryland or has her principal place
of business in Maryland.
The district court thus lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over her action.
However, since the dismissal of an action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits,
such
dismissal
should
be
without
prejudice.
S.
Walk
at
Broadlands Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands,
LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013).
We therefore modify the
magistrate judges dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal
is without prejudice, and we affirm the dismissal as modified.
28
U.S.C.
2106
(2006);
MM
ex
rel.
DM
v.
Sch.
Dist.
of
Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002) ([W]e are
entitled to affirm the courts judgment on alternate grounds, if
such grounds are apparent from the record.).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED