Raymond Lee v. Social Security Administration

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND LEE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-15689
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01843-JCM-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
AUG 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15689 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --