Moore v. Commissioner, Social Security

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Defendant's 12 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 9/22/2017. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 9/22/17-das)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ABRAHAM MOORE, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER,
SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendant.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Case No.: SAG-17-1669

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 19, 2017, Plaintiff Abraham Moore, III (“Mr. Moore”) petitioned this Court to
review the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claim for disability
benefits.

[ECF No. 1]. Currently pending is the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss Mr.

Moore’s Complaint. [ECF No. 12]. Mr. Moore, who appears pro se, has not filed a response.1 I
find that no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons
explained below, I will grant the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss.
On March 10, 2017, the Appeals Council mailed Mr. Moore notice of its decision
denying his request for review of an adverse decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge,
regarding his claim for benefits. [ECF No. 12-2, Cousins Decl., Exh. 8]. That notice also
advised Mr. Moore of his statutory right to commence a civil action within sixty days from
receipt of the notice. Id.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)-(h).

The Commissioner’s implementing

regulations have interpreted the statute to permit sixty-five days from the date of the notice, to
allow sufficient time for mailing the notice. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.901, 422.210(c). Mr. Moore has
1

The Clerk’s Office mailed a Rule 12/56 letter to Mr. Moore on August 31, 2017, explaining that his case could be
dismissed if he failed to respond to the Commissioner’s pending motion. [ECF No. 13].

not alleged that he received the notice outside of the statutory time period. He therefore had to
file his civil action on or before May 14, 2017. Instead, Mr. Moore filed his complaint over one
month late, on June 19, 2017. [ECF No. 1].
Congress has authorized lawsuits seeking judicial review of decisions by the
Commissioner only under certain limited conditions, including specified filing deadlines. City of
Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320, 336 (1958). The limitations period must
therefore be strictly enforced, absent (1) an agreement by the Commissioner to toll the deadlines,
or (2) a valid basis for equitable tolling of the deadlines. “[B]ecause of the importance of
respecting limitations periods, equitable tolling is appropriate only ‘where the defendant has
wrongfully deceived or misled the plaintiff in order to conceal the existence of a cause of
action.’” Kokotis v. U.S. Postal Service, 223 F.3d 275, 280 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing English v.
Pabst Brewing Co., 828 F.2d 1047, 1049 (4th Cir. 1987)). Mr. Moore has not alleged, and the
record does not reflect, any misconduct on the part of the Commissioner in this case. As a result,
equitable tolling is not warranted. Mr. Moore filed his case after the statutory limitations period
had run. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 12], is
GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
A separate order follows.

Dated: September 22, 2017

/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

2