Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thompson v. Saul

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

September 30, 2019

Dorothy Mae Thompson, Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Saul[1], Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of a denial Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).[2] [Doc. 1 at 3.] Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., and 28 U.S.C. § 636, the undersigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to review this matter and issue a Report and Recommendation to the District Court.[3] For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss this action without issuance and service of process.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint on September 5, 2019. [Doc. 1.] In her Complaint, Plaintiff requests review from this Court of the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff's application for DIB. [Id. at 3.] Plaintiff asserts that she

returned to work on the basis of the denial determination, did not appeal, which has caused me permanent injury. I had no idea that arthritis was a progressive disabling disease without treatment.

[Id.] Plaintiff further asserts that she is challenging the Commissioner's decision based on

[t]he fact that I was not granted not even medical insurance as requested to further investigate my injuries, [which] leads me to believe the Commission[er] [k]new the scope of my disabi[l]ity.

[Id. at 4.] Plaintiff makes no other allegations and presents no other information related to her claim.

         APPLICABLE LAW

         Authority for Judicial Review

         The Social Security Act (the “Act”) authorizes judicial review of adverse decisions rendered by the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The United States Supreme Court has enumerated three requirements for judicial review pursuant to § 405(g):

(1) a final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing; (2) commencement of a civil action within 60 days after the mailing of notice of such decision (or within such further time as the Secretary may allow); and (3) filing of the action in an appropriate district court, in general that of the plaintiff's residence or principal place of business.

Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 763-64 (1975). The second and third requirements, which are waivable, specify, respectively, a statute of limitations and appropriate venue. Id. at 764. The first requirement-a final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing-is mandatory; the Court stated, “We interpret the first requirement, however, to be central to the requisite grant of subject-matter jurisdiction-the statute empowers district courts to review a particular type of decision by the [Commissioner], that type being those which are ‘final' and ‘made after a hearing.'” Id.

         Process for Obtaining Judicially Reviewable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.