United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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”). [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. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
recommends that the District Court dismiss this action
without issuance and service of process.
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
[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
[Id. at 4.] Plaintiff makes no other allegations and
presents no other information related to her claim.
for Judicial Review
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.
for Obtaining Judicially Reviewable ...