Fanus v. Union Security Insurance Company

Filing 60

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 46 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations 51 ; adopting Report and Recommendations 56 .; granting 29 Motion to affirm administrative decision; denying 33 and Motion for Summary Judgment {46}. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in this matter for the defendant, affirming the defendant's administrative decision. (Woodlock, Douglas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
STEPHEN FANUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION SECUIRTY INSURANCE
COMPANY and ASSURANT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
14-10304-DPW

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
March 25, 2016
The pro se plaintiff in this case on March 7, 2016 filed
an objection [Dkt. No. 59] to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Dkt. No. 51] dated February 23, 2016.

Having

carefully reviewed that Objection, which in turn reflects
systematic analysis by plaintiff of the Report and
Recommendation1, I overrule the Objection.

1

Certain of plaintiff’s communications with the Court have
introduced a measure of confusion to evaluation of the Report
and Recommendation and his objection to it. The plaintiff
anachronistically refers to the Report and Recommendation as
having been filed on March (sic), 23, 2015 (sic) in his 33 page
Opposition [Dkt. No. 59], itself filed March 17, 2016. As noted
in the text above, the Report and Recommendation was filed on
February 23, 2016. Moreover, on March 18, 2016, the day after
plaintiff filed his lengthy Opposition, the Magistrate Judge’s
Clerk reported that the plaintiff called to say he had never
received a copy of the Report and Recommendation. His
Opposition, however, demonstrates the plaintiff fully reviewed
the Report and Recommendation. His introduction of confusion
about the Report and Recommendation, whether intentional or
negligent, does not dissuade me from acting on it after review
of plaintiff’s Opposition.

While I share the views expressed in the Report and
Recommendation that as a substantive matter judgment affirming
the defendant’s administrative decision would be appropriate, it
appears that plaintiff’s challenge to that decision — through
this litigation — stumbles at the threshold.

I conclude that

the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
correctly stated the law of judicial review in this circumstance
by holding that one who has only engaged in first-level
administrative review and has failed to engage in second-level
administrative review is barred from pursuing judicial review
because administrative remedies have not been fully exhausted.
Holmes v. Colorado Coalition for Homeless Long Term Disability
Plan, 762 F.3d 1195, 1203-04 (10th Cir. 2014).

I find that the

plaintiff here has failed without cognizable justification fully
to exhaust his administrative remedies.

He thus has failed to

satisfy a fundamental requisite for judicial review of his ERISA
claim dispute.
Accordingly, I hereby ADOPT the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge and direct the Clerk to enter final
judgment in this matter for the defendant, affirming the
defendant's administrative decision.

/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock______
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2