United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 12, 2005
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30549
Summary Calendar
_______________________
IRLIN C. THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
No. 1:03-CV-1158
________________________________________________________________
Before JONES, WIENER, and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Irlin C. Thomas appeals the district court’s
decision dismissing her case as moot. We dismiss this appeal as
frivolous. See 5th Circuit Local Rule 42.2.
In November 1992, Ms. Thomas was awarded supplemental
security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.
On August 1, 2001, the Social Security Administration determined
that Thomas’s disability had ceased and that she no longer
qualified for SSI. Thomas appealed the finding, and Administrative
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Law Judge (“ALJ”) Curlee upheld the finding of disability cessation
on November 20, 2002. Thomas subsequently sought judicial review
of ALJ Curlee’s decision in the district court under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g).
During the pendency of her district court case, Thomas
reapplied for SSI. In a decision dated October 29, 2004, ALJ
Markart reopened and revised ALJ Curlee’s November 2002 decision
and found that Thomas had been disabled since August 1, 2001. As
a result of the finding, ALJ Markart fully restored Thomas’s SSI as
of the date payments had ceased, August 1, 2001. In light of the
full restoration of SSI, the Commissioner moved to dismiss Thomas’s
district court case pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) on the
basis that there was no longer an issue to be resolved by the
district court. The district court subsequently entered judgment
dismissing with prejudice Thomas’s case as moot.
Thomas appeals the district court’s judgment, arguing
that: 1) the district court should not have relied upon ALJ
Markart’s decision because it was not part of the record, 2) the
district court did not explain the basis for its finding of
mootness, and 3) ALJ Markart improperly reopened ALJ Curlee’s
November 2002 decision.
We review the district court’s 12(b)(1) decision de novo.
LeClerc v. Webb, 41 F.3d 405, 413 (5th Cir. 2005). First, the
district court properly relied upon ALJ Markart’s decision in
deciding the 12(b)(1) motion. See Ramming v. United States, 281
2
F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). Second, in response to the 12(b)(1)
motion, Thomas failed to carry her burden and make a showing that
subject-matter jurisdiction continued to exist after her SSI had
been fully restored by ALJ Marart’s decision. See id. Finally,
under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488(b), ALJ Markart was authorized to reopen
ALJ Curlee’s decision. There is no possible doubt that the
district court correctly dismissed Thomas’s case as moot. This
appeal is frivolous.
DISMISSED.
3