Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION - The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report, and the magistrate judge's description of the relevant facts is accurate (see Doc. 6 -1). Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and accepts his recommendation. The Court will enter a separate final judgment. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/13/2019. (KEK)

FILED
2019 Nov-13 PM 03:54
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTTIE WAYNE JOHNSON,

}
}
Plaintiff,
}
}
v.
}
}
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of }
}
Social Security Administration,1
}
}
}
Defendant.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-0361-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mr. Johnson filed this Social Security appeal on March 7, 2018, seeking
review of the Commissioner’s decision denying his (Mr. Johnson’s) disability
insurance benefits and supplemental insurance income claims. (Doc. 1). Mr.
Johnson is representing himself.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss Mr. Johnson’s appeal as untimely under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 6). The magistrate judge to whom this case originally

1

The Court asks the Clerk to please substitute Andrew Saul for Nancy A. Berryhill as the proper
defendant pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
25(d) (When a public officer ceases holding office that “officer’s successor is automatically
substituted as a party.”); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Any action instituted in accordance with
this subsection shall survive notwithstanding any change in the person occupying the office of
Commissioner of Social Security or any vacancy in such office.”).

was assigned gave Mr. Johnson an opportunity to respond to the Commissioner’s
motion. (Doc. 7). Mr. Johnson did not file a response.
The magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court
dismiss Mr. Johnson’s complaint. (Doc. 8). The magistrate judge advised the parties
of their right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 8, p. 5). To date, no party has
objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th
Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report, and the magistrate
judge’s description of the relevant facts is accurate (see Doc. 6-1). 2 Therefore, the
Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation.

2

The Appeals Council declined to review Mr. Johnson’s claims on December 22, 2017. (Doc. 61, pp. 23-28). Section 405(g) provides in relevant part:
Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in
controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced
within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such
further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow.
2

The Court will enter a separate final judgment.
DONE this 13th day of November, 2019.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Factoring in five days for Mr. Johnson’s presumed receipt of the Appeals
Council’s notice by mail, Mr. Johnson had until February 26, 2018, to appeal. (Doc. 8, p. 4).
Therefore, Mr. Johnson’s March 7, 2018 appeal is too late.
3