Brooks v. Berryhill

Filing 8

ORDER overruling Plaintiff's objections, adopting 5 Report and Recommendations, dismissing this case without prejudice, and closing this civil action. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/17/2018. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

VEVERLY BROOKS, as mother
and next friend of L.K.D., a minor child,
Plaintiff,
CV 117-114

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the |Court concurs with the Magistrate
i

Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to whiclji objections have been filed. (Doc.
no. 7.) Nothing in Plaintiffs objections warrants deviation from the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation.

On October 4, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiffto "show cause as to why the Court

should not dismiss this case for improper representation" or obtain counsel within 60 days.

(Doc. no. 3.) After Plaintiff failed to respond, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiffs
case be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Local Rule 41.1. (Doc. no. 5.) Plaintiff filed
'

I

objections, stating she "wasn't able to reply to the Court's letter . . ." but giving no

explanation for the failure. (Doc. no. 7, p. 2.) Plaihtiff again requested permission to

represent her daughter in this case without providing any legal basis for the Court allowing
her to do so. (Id.)

Plaintiffs objections do not cure her failure to respond to the October 4th Order
within the time frame established by the Court.

Furthermore, even if the Court were to

consider Plaintiffs objections a proper response to the Order, Plaintiff has still failed to
either obtain counsel or explain why this Court should depart from the law of this circuit,

which provides "a non-attorney parent generally must be represented by counsel in bringing
an action on behalf of his or her child." Oliver v. Southcoast Med. Grp., LLC No. 411-CV115, 2011 WL 2600618, at *1 (S.D. Ga. June 13, 2011); see also Peake ex rel. K.R.D. v.
Comm'rofSoc. Sec, No. 606-CV-1863, 2008 WL 495377, at *1 & n.l (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20,

2008) (prohibiting non-attorney parent from representing her child in appeal of denial of
application of Social Security benefits but recognizing cases from other circuits permitting
non-attorney parents to represent children in such cases); Black v. Colvin, No. CA 14-00165CG-C, 2015 WL 6082112, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 17, 2015) (citing Peake as stating "general

rule in the Eleventh Circuit"). Thus, even if Plaintiff s objections were sufficient to cure her

earlier failure to prosecute, the case would warrant dismissal based on Plaintiffs inability to
represent her child pro se.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES this case without

prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action.

SO ORDERED this /J^L day 0fJanuary5 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

j. randaehale; chiejptudge
UNITE© STATES DISTRICT COURT
iRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA