Filed: May 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-11003 Summary Calendar _ HENRY HARGROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:94-CV-111-X - - - - - - - - - - May 20, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Henry Hargrove appeals the district court's determination that it la
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-11003 Summary Calendar _ HENRY HARGROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:94-CV-111-X - - - - - - - - - - May 20, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Henry Hargrove appeals the district court's determination that it lac..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-11003
Summary Calendar
__________________
HENRY HARGROVE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:94-CV-111-X
- - - - - - - - - -
May 20, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Hargrove appeals the district court's determination
that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision
not to reopen his 1989 claim for disability benefits. We have
reviewed the record and Hargrove's brief and AFFIRM the district
court's dismissal for the same reasons set forth by the district
court. Hargrove v. Shalala, 7:94-CV-111-X (N.D. Tex.; Sept. 7,
1995). Insofar as Hargrove argues that the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. ยง 405(b)(3)(A), mandates a hearing prior to a decision
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-11003
-2-
to reopen, thus distinguishing his case from the holding of
Califano v. Sanders,
430 U.S. 99 (1977), we do not consider this
argument as it is raised for the first time in Hargrove's reply
brief. See Stephens v. C.I.T. Group/Equip. Fin., Inc.,
955 F.2d
1023, 1026 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.