Weaver v. Social Security Administration

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 27 Motion to Reopen Case and denying as moot 28 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/13/15. (kdw) Modified on 10/13/2015 to edit document type (kdw).

On October 7, 2013, Magistrate Judge Janet F. King issued her Final Report
and Recommendation [14] (“R&R”), recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On December 16, 2013, the Court adopted
the Magistrate’s R&R and dismissed the case without prejudice. [24]. The Court
found 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.” (Id. at 3). Because Plaintiff failed to complete the SSA’s administrative
review process, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. (Id.).
On August 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Reopen the Case and
Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. In his Motion to Reopen,
Plaintiff lists “New Tax Evidence” and “Withdrawn Consent to Proceed Before a
Magistrate Judge” to justify reopening his case.1 (Mot. to Reopen at 1). Plaintiff
does not describe this claimed new tax evidence, and he does not offer any support
for his contention that the withdrawal of his consent to proceed before a magistrate
judge provides a basis to reopen his closed case. Plaintiff attached to his motion a

1

A consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge acts only as an election by the
party to consideration of a case by a magistrate rather than a district judge. The
withdrawal of consent, even if timely, does not provide grounds to affect a
previously judicial determination that subject matter jurisdiction is not present.
2

letter from the SSA summarizing his current benefits, a photocopy of his Georgia
drivers license, and a “Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion” from the
Clerk of Court of the Northern District of Georgia.2 (Id. at 2-5).
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that “New Tax Evidence” or “Withdrawn

Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge” justifies reopening this case is
unconvincing. Plaintiff fails to show that the Court has jurisdiction over his
lawsuit by establishing that he has completed the SSA’s administrative review
process. 3 See Sherrod v. Chater, 74 F.3d 243, 245 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[J]udicial
review only exists over ‘final decisions of the Secretary [of the SSA].’” (citing 42
U.S.C. § 405(g)). Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Case is required to be denied.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Case

[27] is DENIED.

2

The Summary Judgment Notice is presumably from a separate action, as
there have been no motions for summary judgment in this case.
3
Because the Court declines to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Case,
Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis [28] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2015.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4