Ayesha Akbar v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 19-10732
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-00329-AJB

AYESHA AKBAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant-Appellee.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 30, 2020)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON, an d ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-10732 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 1 of 6

2

Ayesha Akbar appeals a district court order granting her post-judgment
motion for clarification and denying as moot her post-judgment motions to submit
additional information. On appeal, she argues only the merits of her social security
disability claim, but we do not have that claim before us. For that reason her
appeal fails.
I.
In August 2008 Akbar applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) from the Social Security Administration.
After a hearing, an administrative law judge issued a decision finding that Akbar
was not disabled for purposes of DIB or SSI. She appealed that decision to the
Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council, which remanded her case back
to the ALJ so he could provide additional rationales for his decision. After two
additional hearings, the ALJ again denied her claim. Akbar again appealed, but the
Appeals Council denied her request for review.
In February 2015 Akbar filed a counseled complaint with the district court
requesting review. She alleged that the decision denying her benefits was not
supported by substantial evidence and had applied incorrect legal principles. In
September 2016 the district court issued an order reversing the Commissioner’s
decision and remanding for further proceedings. The court gave various reasons
Case: 19-10732 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 2 of 6

3

for its decision, such as the fact the ALJ did not clearly state the weight it gave to
various opinions from Akbar’s treating physicians.
On March 17, 2017, the ALJ once again denied Akbar’s claim. The Appeals
Council denied her request for review on July 8, 2017. In its denial, the Appeals
Council noted that in Akbar’s request for review she had contended that the district
court had awarded her DIB. The Appeals Council instructed her that she could file
“a new civil action” if she wanted a district court to review the ALJ’s most recent
decision denying her DIB.
Instead, on July 26, 2017, Akbar filed a pro se motion for “Claimants Title II
Insurance Benefits.” She appeared to have construed the district court’s prior order
to reverse and remand her case as an order entitling her to DIB. The district court
denied her motion seeking DIB and explained its prior order, noting that her
motion was not timely and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In response
Akbar filed three motions to enforce the district court’s order reversing and
remanding her case. In October 2017 the district court denied her three motions.
The district court noted that if Akbar wanted review of the Commissioner’s most
recent decision, she should file a new civil action.
Instead, in August 2018 Akbar filed a motion for clarification regarding the
district court’s order to reverse and remand her case. And in January 2019 she
Case: 19-10732 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 3 of 6

4

filed two motions to submit additional information in connection with the Social
Security Administration canceling her Medicare Part B payments.
On February 15, 2019, the district court granted her motion for clarification
and denied as moot her motions to submit additional information. The court
explained that it did not reverse the ALJ’s decision for calculation and payment of
benefits or for the ALJ to find Akbar’s treating physician’s opinions true, but
instead for the Commissioner to further weigh medical opinions and consider her
claims in light of the record. The court explained that the Commissioner had
adhered to its order and then denied her DIB, which she never appealed. And the
Court explained that the denial of Akbar’s DIB was final, and the Commissioner
correctly refused to issue her benefits. Regarding Akbar’s motions to submit
additional information, the court explained that even if the cancellation of her
Medicare Part B payments was improper, it lacked jurisdiction because she failed
to show that she had exhausted her administrative remedies.
II.
The courts of appeals have jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions
of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The final judgment
rule requires “that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal
following final judgment on the merits.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord,
Case: 19-10732 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 4 of 6

5

449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981). The denial of a motion to enforce a final judgment is a
final, appealable order. Gilbert v. Johnson, 490 F.2d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 1974).
1

In civil cases, the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory
prerequisite to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin.,
606 F.3d 1296, 1300–02 (11th Cir. 2010). A notice of appeal in a civil case must
be filed within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered if the
United States is a party. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The time to appeal is
measured from the day the judgment or order is entered on the docket. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Jones v. Gann, 703 F.2d 513, 514 (11th Cir. 1983).
“[T]he law is by now well settled in this Circuit that a legal claim or
argument that has not been briefed before [us] is deemed abandoned and its merits
will not be addressed.” Access Now, Inc. v. S.W. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324,
1330 (11th Cir. 2004). We read “briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally . . . [but]
issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are [still] deemed abandoned.”
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here the only district court order that we have jurisdiction to review is the
order granting Akbar’s motion for clarification and denying her motion to submit
additional information, as it is the only order from which she timely appealed. But

1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this
Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to October 1, 1981.
Case: 19-10732 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 5 of 6

6

Akbar has attempted to litigate the merits of her claim for DIB instead of raising
any arguments related to the district court’s order over which we have jurisdiction.
That means Akbar has abandoned any challenge to that order by failing to brief it
on appeal.
AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10732 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 6 of 6