Stephan A. Fleming appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Upon de novo review, see Clarinda Home Health v. Shalala, 100 F.3d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1996), we agree with the district court that there was no constructive or de facto reopening of Fleming’s earlier application, and thus that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking, see *694 King v. Chater, 90 F.3d 323, 325 (8th Cir. 1996). The district court is affirmed.