Mercer v. Walmart

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 11/19/12. (bcw)

L.a.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISRICT OF GEORGIA,10 PH
ii
LUILIW i
SAVANNAH DIVISION

CLE

LOIS MERCER,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. CV412-223

V.

WALMART,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lois Mercer's Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. 8.) In the motion, Plaintiff contends
that she filed a "motion on appeal" on August 30, 2012, but did
not get a letter' from the Eichholz Law Firm until November 3,
2012.

(Id. at 2.) The Court finds these statements as curious

for several reasons.

First, Plaintiff has always appeared in

this case without the assistance of counsel, what the Court
refers to as pro se. So, it is unclear why Plaintiff would be
receiving letters from the Eichholz Law Firm that concern this
matter. Second, this case was filed on August 30, 2012, making
Plaintiff's claim of a motion on appeal confusing. The Court
can only assume that Plaintiff is referring to her complaint,
not any request for appeal.

1

No letter was included with Plaintiff's motion.

Lastly, Plaintiff requests that the Court direct the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to either
grant her disability benefits or "redetermine them."
3.)

(Id. at

However, Plaintiff's complaint named Walmart as the

defendant in this case. (Doc. 1 at 2-3.) While Plaintiff's
complaint did request that the Court "releif [sic] my social
security disability income" (Id. at 5), the Magistrate Judge
explained in his Report and Recommendation that she cannot seek
an award of social security benefits from this Court without
showing that she first sought them from the Commissioner, but
was ultimately denied (Doc. 5 at 2) . In addition, Plaintiff
must first exhaust all available appeals within the
administrative framework of the Social Security Administration
before she is permitted to seek review of the Commissioner's
decision in this Court. Because after carefully reviewing
Petitioner's motion, the Court can find no reason to disturb its
prior order. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion must be DENIED.
SO ORDERED this /.day of November 2012.

WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2