STANLEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Filing
20
ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 8 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (nwd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
GEORGE STANLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 2:14-cv-313-JDL
)
)
)
)
ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
George Stanley (“Stanley”) is the pro se plaintiff in this action against the
Social Security Administration (“SSA”).
He alleges that he was assaulted by a
security guard at an SSA facility and that the SSA wrongfully excluded him from
their offices and otherwise mistreated him. ECF No. 1. On December 17, 2014,
Magistrate Judge John H. Rich III (the “Magistrate Judge”) issued a Recommended
Decision finding that several but not all of the claims in Stanley’s complaint should
be dismissed. ECF No. 8. Stanley has objected, ECF No. 13, and so I review the
Magistrate Judge’s decision de novo, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b) (2014). After careful
consideration, I adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision.
The Magistrate Judge determined that Stanley’s claim or claims for assault
and his claim or claims that may reasonably be construed to assert claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) should proceed. ECF No. 8 at 3. However,
the Magistrate Judge also concluded that the claims in Stanley’s complaint related
to his allegations that the SSA treated him poorly or rudely should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id.
Stanley disputes this decision on the grounds that the “actions of [the SSA]
must be viewed as a whole” and “the assault cannot be truncated from [the] overall
reach of [the] complaint[.]” ECF No. 13 at 1. Although evidence of acts of rudeness
by SSA employees may prove to be relevant in connection with Stanley’s ADA claims
and any claims stemming from the assault, they do not, standing alone, give rise to
an independent cause of action. See ECF No. 8 at 2-3.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED. The claims made in Stanley’s complaint other than the claim
or claims for assault and the claim or claims that may reasonably be construed to
assert cognizable claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) are
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2015
/s/ Jon D. Levy
U.S. District Judge
2
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?