Sedano San Nicolas v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/1/16 RECOMMENDING that Defendant's 14 motion to dismiss be granted, and this action be closed. Matter referred to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PRIMARIA SEDANO NICOLAS,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:15-cv-2179 TLN CKD
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
17
18
Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has filed a statement
19
of no opposition. Upon review of the documents in support, no opposition having been filed, and
20
good cause appearing, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
21
22
23
Defendant moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending
the action is time barred. Defendant’s contention is correct.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a civil action seeking review of a final decision of the
24
Commissioner of Social Security must be commenced within sixty days after mailing to plaintiff
25
of the final agency decision. The governing regulations provide that “mailing” means the date of
26
receipt by plaintiff, which is presumed to be five days after the date of notice of the final decision.
27
See 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c). The sixty day limitation is not jurisdictional but is a statute of
28
limitations. See Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir. 1987).
1
1
In a decision dated March 13, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined
2
plaintiff is not disabled. Thereafter, by letter dated July 30, 2015, plaintiff was notified that the
3
Appeals Council had denied plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision. The pending
4
action was not filed until October 19, 2015, outside of the sixty day time limit. In filing no
5
opposition, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, such as fraud,
6
misinformation, or deliberate concealment, sufficient to equitably toll the statute of limitations.
7
See Jackson v. Astrue, 506 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Bowen v. City of New
8
York, 476 U.S. 467, 481 (1986) (tolling appropriate only in rare cases).
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
10
1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) be granted; and
11
2. This action be closed.
12
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
13
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
14
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
15
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
16
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
17
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.
18
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
19
Dated: February 1, 2016
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
4 sedano2179.mtd.57
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?