United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 1, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51404
Summary Calendar
PEDRO VARGAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-02-CV-823-SS
--------------------
Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Pedro Vargas appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
petition for judicial review of the dismissal of his application
for disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. He
argues that his due process rights were violated because he did not
receive notice of the administrative hearing and the Commissioner
did not comply with the regulations pertaining to dismissal of the
claim. Because Vargas raised a colorable constitutional claim, the
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
district court had jurisdiction to consider his petition for
judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. See Califano v.
Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-09 (1977).
Vargas has not shown that his due process rights were
violated. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sent all of the
notices to the last known address provided by Vargas in his
application. At no time did Vargas notify the ALJ that his address
had changed or that the post office box address was no longer
valid. Although Vargas may not have received the first two notices
of the hearing, the record shows that he signed and returned the
mail receipt for the show cause order sent by certified mail.
Vargas does not dispute that he received the show cause order.
However, Vargas failed to respond to it. Thus, the record
indicates that the notices sent by the ALJ satisfied the
requirements of procedural due process. See, e.g., Mullane v.
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950); United
States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in holding that Vargas
had not shown a due process violation.
AFFIRMED.
2