Khalid v. Social Security Administration et al

Filing 34

ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's 29 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (Loury, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAFIYA A. KHALID,
Case No. 13-11729
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder

Plaintiff,
v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
At a session of said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
on
January 21, 2014
PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
On November 19, 2013, Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Court grant the motion to dismiss
brought by the Defendant Social Security Administration and the three Defendant
employees of this federal agency, and that the complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff Safiya
A. Khalid be dismissed. On December 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the R & R.
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, Plaintiff’s objections, the parties’
submissions on Defendants’ underlying motion, and the remainder of the materials in the
record, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R & R
in its entirety.

Plaintiff’s rambling, 25-page objections to the R & R largely fail to challenge (or
even address) the specific legal grounds for the Magistrate Judge’s recommended rulings,
but instead raise arguments that, even if accepted, would not undermine the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusions. First, Plaintiff complains of difficulties she encountered with this
District’s electronic filing system, and she contends that the record upon which the
Magistrate Judge issued the R & R was incomplete and inaccurate in certain respects.
These objections are beside the point, however, where Defendants’ underlying motion to
dismiss was brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and focused strictly on
the pleadings, and where the Magistrate Judge accepted the allegations of Plaintiff’s
complaint as true for purposes of resolving Defendants’ motion. Applying this standard
of review, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal
on various legal grounds — including lack of state action that could give rise to a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, failure to plead a constitutional violation, and failure to exhaust
administrative remedies — that do not turn upon, or require examination of, the
voluminous materials Plaintiff has placed into the record. In any event, having
independently reviewed this record, the Court is satisfied that it does not call into
question the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in the R & R.
Next, Plaintiff points to allegations and exhibits that, in her view, evidence
wrongdoing by Defendants that exceeds and pre-dates the continuing disability review
(“CDR”) process that is the principal focus of Defendants’ underlying motion to dismiss.
Again, however, even assuming that Plaintiff’s claims in this case are meant to
2

encompass alleged governmental misconduct beyond the efforts of the Defendant agency
to assess and confirm Plaintiff’s continued eligibility for Social Security benefits, these
more expansive claims nonetheless would suffer from the very same legal defects
identified in Defendants’ motion and the Magistrate Judge’s R & R — i.e., failure to
identify state action in support of a § 1983 claim, failure to plead a civil rights violation
that could support a § 1983 claim or a claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s lengthy recitation of the wrongs she allegedly has suffered over the years,
whether at the hands of the Defendant agency and its employees or otherwise, does not
provide a basis for disturbing the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
Finally, Plaintiff faults the Magistrate Judge for failing to identify any policy of the
Defendant Social Security Administration that might support the statements in the R & R
that Plaintiff “has not been subjected to any unusual procedural requirements” and that
“[a]ll persons receiving disability benefits are subject to CDRs.” (R & R at 7.) The
requisite authority for a CDR, however, is expressly set forth in the regulations governing
claims for Social Security benefits, which state in pertinent part:
After we find that you are disabled, we must evaluate your
impairment(s) from time to time to determine if you are still eligible for
disability cash benefits. We call this evaluation a continuing disability
review. We may begin a continuing disability review for any number of
reasons including your failure to follow the provisions of the Social
Security Act or these regulations. When we begin such a review, we will
notify you that we are reviewing your eligibility for disability benefits, why
we are reviewing your eligibility, . . . , that our review could result in the
termination of your benefits, and that you have the right to submit medical
3

and other evidence for our consideration during the continuing disability
review . . . . If this review shows that we should stop payment of your
benefits, we will notify you in writing and give you an opportunity to
appeal.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1589.1 In any event, the Magistrate Judge’s observations regarding
CDRs provide only an alternative basis for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s civil rights claims,
and these claims would be subject to dismissal on other grounds even in the absence of
express regulatory support for the Defendant agency’s effort to review Plaintiff’s
continuing eligibility for benefits.
For these reasons,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s December 3,
2013 objections to the Magistrate Judge’s November 19, 2013 Report and
Recommendation are OVERRULED, and that the Magistrate Judge’s R & R (docket #29)
is ADOPTED as the ruling of this Court. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for
the reasons set forth in the R & R, that Defendants’ August 30, 2013 motion to dismiss
(docket #15) is GRANTED. In light of this ruling, Plaintiff’s October 31, 2013 motion to
strike portions of the record and correct other portions of the record (docket #23) is
DENIED AS MOOT, and Plaintiff’s October 31, 2013 motion for an order regarding the
1

As noted in the R & R and in Defendants’ underlying motion, this CDR process has yet
to be completed for Plaintiff, largely due to Plaintiff’s refusal to fill out the forms needed by the
Defendant agency to conduct this review. While Plaintiff’s CDR remains pending, she has
continued to receive her Social Security benefits. Notably, it is precisely because the CDR
process is not complete and Plaintiff continues to receive her benefits that the Defendant agency
has denied Plaintiff’s recent requests for an administrative hearing — absent a determination that
Plaintiff is no longer eligible for benefits, there is no decision to review in an administrative or
judicial proceeding.
4

Court’s jurisdiction (docket #24) likewise is DENIED AS MOOT.

s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: January 21, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on January 21, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

5