Iacobescu v. Social Security Administration

Filing 30

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 22 , 16 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

V E R O N IC A IACOBESCU, P l a in tif f , F ile No. 1:08-cv-561 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL S O C IA L SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, D e f e n d a n t. / M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER A D O P T I N G THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION O n November 24, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a R ep o rt and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that Plaintiff Veronica Iacobescu's a p p e al of the denial of disability benefits be dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for la c k of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 22.) Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on D ec em b er 1, 2008. (Dkt. No. 23.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's objections are d e n ied and the R&R is adopted as the opinion of the Court. T h is Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of a R&R to which specific objections are made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the M a g i s tr a te Judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P . 72(b). Plaintiff's objections generally restate the allegations in her complaint without s p e c if ic a lly objecting to any portion of the R&R. Failure to file specific objections to a re p o rt and recommendation waives the right to further review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

1 4 0 (1985) (approving the rule set forth in United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1 9 8 1 )); Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) ("Overly general objections d o not satisfy the objection requirement."); Fed. R. Civ P. 72(b). T h e R&R recommended dismissal of the complaint because the Court lacks ju ris d ic tio n ; Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies by seeking review of the d e n i a l of benefits in order to obtain a "final decision" of the Commissioner of Social S e c u rity. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(g) (permitting judicial review of a "final decision" of the C o m m is s io n e r). Plaintiff claims in her objections that she did not seek review because she a p p a re n tly expected, but did not receive, the appropriate documentation from her doctor and f ro m the local Michigan Department of Human Services. (Dkt. No. 23, Objs. to R&R 12.) S h e also believed that "they thought I am not physically dissabled [sic], and sooner or later I'll return to my work, or to the life I wanted to have." (Id. at 12-13.) However, Plaintiff d o e s not indicate how these asserted reasons cure the Court's lack of jurisdiction. While the C o m m is s io n e r might conclude that these reasons constitute good cause for failure to seek tim e ly review, there is no indication that Plaintiff presented these reasons to the C o m m is s io n e r. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.911 (listing factors the Commissioner considers in d e t e r m i n i n g whether the claimant has shown good cause for missing a deadline to request re v ie w ). Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Report and

2

R e c o m m e n d a tio n of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 23) are DENIED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Veronica Iacobescu's complaint is D I S M I S S E D for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. T h is closes the case.

D a te:

April 10, 2009

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3