Daizer Mate v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 19 in that Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for a Guardian ad litem is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 1/23/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WINNER DAWAN MATE,
Case No.: 2:15-cv-2986
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Kemp
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
OF SOCIAL SECURITY, et al.,
On November 7, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Guardian ad litem be denied and
that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 19).
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. (Doc. 20). Defendant has replied. The Court will consider the matter de
novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
On May 1, 2013, Plaintiff was awarded a lump sum payment for social security disability
benefits dating back to February of 2006. Plaintiff sought review of the lump sum benefits. The
Social Security Administration determined that there was an overpayment of benefits in the
amount of $1,247 for time that Plaintiff was incarcerated and not entitled to his benefits.
Plaintiff filed a request for waiver of overpayment recovery which was denied, and he also
sought reconsideration of that decision, which was also denied. Plaintiff did not request a
hearing and instead initiated this case.
Plaintiff is seeking review of his lump sum backpayment, as well as the overpayment
waiver determination. He also seeks access to the Social Security office.
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff must receive a final decision on his lump
sum backpayment before bringing a case in this Court. Plaintiff’s claim with Social Security was
initially misplaced, but is now being processed by the Social Security Administration.
Plaintiff’s objections are that the final decision requirement should be moot or waived
because he had no other means of resolution of his claims until he brought this case. Further, he
asserts that without intervention by this Court, the Social Security Administration would not
have acted on his claim. He claims that Defendants committed neglect, injustice, criminal
mischief without repercussion.
Plaintiff also objects regarding another motion he filed to move or consolidate with Case
number 2010-cv-668. And he again argues that his motion for a guardian ad litem should be
granted because he is incompetent. Finally, he argues that his civil rights have been violated by
being denied access to the Social Security Administration. (See generally Doc. 20).
The Court has carefully considered all of Plaintiff’s arguments in the responsive brief and
in the Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the issues raised. For the reasons stated in the well-reasoned
Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Based on the aforementioned and the detailed Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s objections have been thoroughly considered. Accordingly, the Report and
Recommendation, Document 19, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Objections are
hereby OVERRULED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for a
Guardian ad litem is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 5, 17, 18 and 19 from the Court’s pending motions
list, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?