Daizer Mate v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

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.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION WINNER DAWAN MATE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 2:15-cv-2986 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH Magistrate Judge Kemp CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, et al., Defendants. ORDER 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 2 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 3

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?