USCA11 Case: 25-12674 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2025 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12674 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DWAYNE JAY NORTON, Petitioner, versus SHIRLEY ANN MARZAN, GONZALO BALLECILLO, Judges, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondents. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Social Security Administration Agency No. 2517690080247 ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-12674 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12674 In June 2025, Dwayne Jay Norton, proceeding pro se, mailed to this Court a “notice of appeal,” to which he attached a copy of a May 2025 order issued by a Social Security Administration (“SSA”) administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The Clerk of Court issued a com- munication that no action would be taken on that filing. In August 2025, Norton filed a “complaint,” which initiated this appeal and appears to seek review of both the ALJ’s May 2025 order and the Clerk’s June 2025 communication.

We lack jurisdiction to review the May 2025 ALJ order be- cause it is not a district court order and we cannot directly review decisions by SSA ALJs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that the courts of appeals have jurisdiction over “appeals from all final de- cisions of the district courts” (emphasis added)); Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266, 269 (1998) (applying § 1291 in a Social Security case); Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)(1) (providing that we have jurisdiction to review agency orders when such review is authorized by law); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (providing for review of final SSA decisions in the district courts and that subsequent decisions of the district courts are “sub- ject to review in the same manner as . . . judgment[s] in other civil actions”).

To the extent Norton’s “complaint” evinces an intent to ap- peal from the Clerk’s June 2025 communication, that communica- tion also is not an appealable ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.