Higgins v. Colvin

Filing 27

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 22 " Motion for seponea [sic]". Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 12/2/2014. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
DANA M. HIGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 114-099

ORDER
_________
Presently before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff titled “motion for seponea [sic]”
in which Plaintiff lists the addresses of different doctors and his former lawyer at the
administrative level. (Doc. no. 22.) Under a standing order in the Southern District, pro se
litigants must explain, ex parte, in writing to the Court the necessity of the subpoena. In re
Subpoenas, MC 496-006, doc. no. 1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 1996). Plaintiff’s motion does not explain
the necessity for the subpoenas but rather simply lists addresses. Furthermore, review of a
decision by the Commissioner of Social Security is usually solely based upon the transcript of
the record and the pleadings. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(g). Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s “motion for seponea [sic].” (Doc. no. 22.)
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2014, at Augusta, Georgia.