Theodore Justice v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1525 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1525

THEODORE JUSTICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Matthew James Maddox, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01372-MJM)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 21, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Justice, Appellant Pro Se. James Austin McTigue, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Commissioner of Social Security.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1525 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Theodore Justice appeals the district court’s order denying his request for

preliminary relief and dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

Justice v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:24-cv-01372-MJM (D. Md. June 6, 2024). We deny

as moot Justice’s motion to seal the supplement to his informal brief, as that document is

not accessible on this court’s public docket. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* We observe that the district court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction over Justice’s complaint due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See L.N.P. v. Kijakazi, 64 F.4th 577, 585 (4th Cir. 2023). Upon review, however, we conclude that the district court nonetheless did not err by dismissing Justice’s complaint for failure to exhaust. See id. at 586 (explaining that, in appropriate circumstances, affirmative defense of exhaustion may be reviewed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).