Stebbins v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 in toto; granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 12 and Plaintiff's complaint including any and all amendments thereto, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff's Motion 18 , to Disqualify Judge is denied. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on July 8, 2013. (sh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
DAVID STEBBINS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 3:12-CV-03032

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 14) of the Honorable
Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Also before
the Court are Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 15). For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS
the Report and Recommendation and finds that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted.
The Magistrate recommends that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the
Plaintiff, David Stebbins, has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Social
Security Act. In his objections, Mr. Stebbins concedes as to the Magistrate’s reasoning, but asks that
his complaint be construed as a petition for writ of mandamus and that the Court order Defendant
to schedule a hearing regarding his claim that he does not owe any overpayment on his social
security benefits.
Even if the Court were to construe Mr. Stebbins’s complaint as a petition for writ of
mandamus, the action must still be dismissed. “The writ of mandamus is intended to provide a
remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant
owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Taylor v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 2005)
(quotation omitted). Mr. Stebbins did not exhaust all available avenues of relief before filing his
complaint in this case. In fact, the complaint was filed on March 6, 2012 to complain about the fact
-1-

that Mr. Stebbins had stopped receiving benefits as of March 2012. Mr. Stebbins clearly did not
exhaust any administrative remedies before seeking relief in this Court. Nor did the extraordinary
relief of a writ of mandamus become appropriate as of the filing of Mr. Stebbins’s amended
complaint on May 3, 2012.
The Court finds, therefore, upon de novo review as to Mr. Stebbins’s objections, that Mr.
Stebbins’s objections do not raise any issue of law or bring to light any facts that would require
departure from the Magistrate’s findings set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is
ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
For the reasons set forth above, and including those reasons set forth in the Report and
Recommendations and herein adopted, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint, including any and all amendments
thereto, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Mr. Stebbins also moves to disqualify Chief United States Magistrate Judge James
Marschewski. Although Judge Marschewski originally granted Mr. Stebbins leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in this case, the case was subsequently reassigned to Judge Bryant, who entered the
Report and Recommendations.

The Court does not agree that there are any grounds for

disqualification of Judge Marschewski in this matter, and Mr. Stebbins does not argue that Judge
Bryant should be disqualified.
Mr. Stebbins does not give any other grounds for why it is “abundantly clear” that the Court
holds an animus against him, and the Court is otherwise unaware of any grounds warranting
disqualification from this case.
-2-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Stebbins’s Motion to Disqualify (Doc. 18) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2013.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-