Weaver v. Social Security Administration
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 20 Final Report and Recommendation, GRANTING the Defendant's 14 Motion to Dismiss and DENYING Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 12/16/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SALINAS ACOSTA WEAVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:12-cv-4488-WSD
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [20] (“R&R) on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint [14], and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [16].
I.
BACKGROUND1
A.
Procedural History
On January 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint against Defendant
Social Security Administration (“SSA”). [3]. The Plaintiff alleged that the
Defendant improperly reduced his disability benefits in December 2012, and also
1
The R&R includes a detailed discussion of the relevant facts, both in its fact
section and throughout the opinion. None of the parties objected to the Magistrate
Judge’s findings of fact, and finding no plain error, the Court adopts them.
withheld $19,000 owed to him. [Id.]. On April 15, 2013, the Defendant, on behalf
of Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the SSA, filed its Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [14]. On
September 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed his Response to the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint. [15]. On the same day, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Default Judgment alleging that the Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint
within the time required by Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[16]. On September 30, 2013, the Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Default Judgment. [19]. On October 7, 2013, Judge King issued her Final
R&R. [20]. Judge King recommended that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction be granted because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. Judge King also recommended that the Plaintiff’s
Motion for Default Judgment be dismissed as moot because the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this action. No objections to the R&R have been filed.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review on the Magistrate Judge’s Final R&R
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
2
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied,
459 U.S. 1112 (1983). Because no objections to the Final R&R have been filed,
the Court reviews the R&R for plain error. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984).
B.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Magistrate Judge found that the Plaintiff was notified several times by
the SSA that he had the option to appeal the agency’s decision by filing a request
for reconsideration. There is no evidence in the record that the Plaintiff filed a
request for reconsideration or otherwise requested a hearing before an
administrative law judge. The Court thus finds no plain error in the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s failure to complete the administrative
review process deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over his claims,
and this action is required to be dismissed.2
2
Because the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that the Motion for Default Judgment is required to be denied as
moot. See McEntees Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Valley Nat’l Bank, No. 1-06-cv-1952GET, 2006 WL 1097839, at *5 (N.D. Ga. April 21, 2006) (denying plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment as moot because there was no subject matter
jurisdiction over the claims).
3
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2013.
4
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?