Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Michele Nice
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-369-SE
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration
Report and Recommendation
Michele Nice, who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a complaint naming the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration as the defendant, along with
voluminous medical records, for review of her case. The
complaint was referred for preliminary review to determine
whether it stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); LR 4.3(d)(1). Because of the court’s
limited jurisdiction in social security cases, the court
initially gave Nice 30 days to file an amended complaint to show
that she had received a final decision from the Commissioner of
Social Security on her application for benefits. Doc. no. 4.
The court later gave Nice an additional 60 days to file the
amended complaint, Doc. no. 5. Nice has not filed an amended
complaint or made any other filing to comply with the court’s
order within the time allowed.
This court has limited jurisdiction to review decisions by
the Social Security Administration. As provided in the prior
Case 1:22-cv-00369-SE Document 6 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 3

2
order (document no. 4), under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court has
jurisdiction to review the final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration when the complaint seeking
review is filed within sixty days of after notice of the final
agency decision and when the claimant lives or works in this
district. Brown v. Astrue, 11-cv-056-JL, 2011 WL 3664429, at *2
(D.N.H. Aug. 19, 2011); Perry v. Astrue, 10-cv-359-JD, 2010 WL
3429570 (D.N.H. Aug. 30, 2010). Conversely, the court lacks
jurisdiction to consider a social security case in which the
claimant has not exhausted administrative remedies and the
Commissioner has not issued a final decision. Id.
The complaint that Nice filed appears to seek review of a
prior appeal rather than a final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration. For that reason, the court
lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the complaint.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court should
dismiss the complaint filed in this case (document no. 1) for
lack of jurisdiction.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Only those issues raised in the objection to this
Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
Case 1:22-cv-00369-SE Document 6 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 3

3
court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. 	See id. 	Failure to file
any objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court's order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
January 19, 2023
cc: 	Michele Nice, pro se
Case 1:22-cv-00369-SE Document 6 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 3