United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
June 25, 2015
ALVERTO GADSON PARKER, Claimant,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Proceeding pro se, Alverto Gadson Parker seeks judicial review of a Social Security Disability claim. Doe. 1. He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doe. 2. The Court directed him to supplement his IFP information, doe. 5, and he has complied. Doe. 7. Based upon his representations, the Court GRANTS his IFP motion. Doe. 2. His case, however, must be dismissed.
Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) as the sole jurisdictional basis for judicial review in Social Security matters. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) ("No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided."); United States v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 156 F.3d 1098, 1103-05 (11th Cir. 1998); Rose v. Colvin, 2014 WL 5034608 at * 2 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 8, 2014). That statute requires plaintiffs like Parker to exhaust the SSA's administrative review process and sue for judicial review within 60 days of "a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which [plaintiff] was a party." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added).
Hence, Parker is required to plead both timeliness and "claim-review" facts. Pierre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2012 WL 1066811 at * 3 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (requiring a plaintiff to allege facts supporting the conclusion that Commissioner rendered a final decision in the application below); Cribbet, 2012 WL 5308044 at * 2 ("The plaintiff must also allege that he or she appealed to the Appeals Council, setting forth the application date, the decision date, and the outcome.").
Plaintiff alleges no such facts and, for that matter, nothing of substance. His entire Statement of Claim: "I had so many doctors who told me not to [be] working because of my asthma, lungs and tremble in my body." Doc. 1 at 3. Attached to his Complaint, however, is documentation of his claim review by the SSA. Id. at 11-53. That shows he exhausted his SSA administrative appeals on August 28, 2014. Id. at 27; see also id. at 53. The SSA then warned: "You have 60 days to file a civil action (ask for court review)." Id. at 28. He filed this case on February 26, 2015. Doc. 1.
Construing plaintiff's complaint liberally,  he alleges that he sought SSA disability benefits and obtained an adverse decision. Yet, he failed to timely seek judicial review. Dismissal therefore is warranted, with no "second chance" pleading justified because Parker's own documentation sinks his claim. Cf., Cribbet, 2012 WL 5308044 at * 3 ( sua sponte granting second chance pleading opportunity where pro se SSA claimant failed to plead review denial date and, evidently, attached no documentation on that score). Accordingly, this case should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.