
    Paul MESSER, California Medicare beneficiary; Dorothy Calabrese, M.D., California Medicare physician provider, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-56622.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 21, 2010.
    Paul Messer, Laguna Woods, CA, pro se.
    Dorothy Calabrese, Laguna Hills, CA, pro se.
    Russell William Chittenden, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Annette Kaz-merski, Esquire, Conkle, Kremer & Engel PLC, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Kathleen Sebelius is substituted for her predecessor, Michael O. Leavitt, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Messer and Dorothy Calabrese, M.D. appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging that defendants’ denial of reimbursement claims for transfer factor therapy violated various civil and criminal federal statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Kaiser v. Blue Cross of Cal., 347 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action because Messer and Cala-brese failed to exhaust them administrative remedies under the Medicare Act prior to filing the action. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395ff(b)(l)(A), 1395Ü (incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)-(h) by reference, and thus providing that judicial review is only available after a hearing and the final decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services); Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 614-16, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984) (stating that claims arise under the Medicare Act, and are subject to its exhaustion requirements, if they are inextricably intertwined with claims for Medicare benefits).

Messer and Calabrese’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     