Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07105/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07105-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 19 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

BENJAMIN SPENCER GOSSETT, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 04-7105 

(D.C. No. 04-CV-214-W) 

(E. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRISCOE, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.l(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-7105 Document: 010110642413 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 1
Benjamin Spencer Gossett, proceeding prose, appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his complaint. Mr. Gossett was denied social security disability 

benefits. He then filed a civil action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma 

challenging that denial. The district court dismissed the action on the ground that 

Mr. Gossett failed to file his complaint within sixty days following the presumed 

receipt of the notice of the Appeals Council decision denying his benefits. We 

affirm. 

The district court dismissed Gossett' s complaint in response to defendant's 

motion to dismiss. 1 In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the district court is limited 

to the facts pled in the complaint. Burnham v. Humphrey Hospitality Reit Trust 

Inc., 403 F .3d 709, 713 (10th Cir. 2005). In this case, the district court went 

outside of the complaint and relied on facts contained in an affidavit and exhibits 

attached to defendant's motion to dismiss, thereby converting the motion to 

dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. In so doing, the district court failed 

to give proper notice to the parties that it was converting the motion. If, however, 

Defendant argued before the district court that it was moving to dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the court lacks jurisdiction to review a 

case filed outside of the sixty-day time period under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This 

statement is incorrect. In Flores v. Sullivan, a case cited to us by the defendant, 

the Fifth Circuit recognized that "[t]he Supreme Court has held that the sixty-day 

time period in section 405(g) represents a statute of limitation instead of a 

jurisdictional bar." 945 F.2d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). 

Accordingly, we will treat the defendant's motion as a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss 

as opposed to a 12(b)(l) motion to dismiss. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-7105 Document: 010110642413 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 2
a party is not prejudiced by the conversion, then this court may proceed with its 

appellate review relying upon summary judgment standards. Id. 

Although no notice was given in this case, Mr. Gossett was not prejudiced 

by the conversion of the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. 

Mr. Gossett responded to the motion to dismiss and he had the opportunity to 

present evidence to rebut the defendant's evidence. We will therefore review the 

district court's dismissal as a grant of summary judgment. Summary judgment is 

appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

In Mr. Gossett's complaint he states that "[t]he written determination of the 

Appeals Council was not provided to plaintiff or to his representatives in 

accordance with applicable regulations." R., Doc. 1 at ,i 9. Attached to 

defendant's motion is a declaration from an employee in the Social Security 

Administration who reviewed Mr. Gossett's file. Her review indicated that the 

letter informing Mr. Gossett of the Appeals Council's denial was mailed on 

April 18, 2002 (a copy of the letter with that date is also attached) and that there 

had been no request for an extension of time to file a civil action. R., Doc. 10, 

Att. at 3. Under the social security regulations, a claimant is presumed to receive 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-7105 Document: 010110642413 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 3
the notice of the decision of the Appeals Council five days after the date of 

mailing of such notice, unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary. 20 

C.F .R. § 422.210( c ). A claimant must file a civil action in district court within 60 

days of the receipt of the notice, unless good cause is shown for an extension. Id. 

Mr. Gossett did not file his civil action until May 6, 2004, over two years after 

the notice was sent and presumably received. 

In Mr. Gossett's response to the motion to dismiss, he simply repeats the 

same vague information from his complaint "that [he] was not notified of the 

[Appeals Council] decision in the manner required by regulation." R., Doc. 14 at 

1. He does not provide any more detailed information to support this conclusory 

allegation. He then goes on to state that "repeated written and oral attempts to 

obtain a copy of the decision were ignored." Id. Again, however, 

Mr. Gossett fails to support this statement with any kind of a detailed recitation of 

the factual circumstances of when and how he attempted to obtain copies of the 

decision; facts that are exclusively within his control. Conclusory allegations are 

insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Peck v. Horrocks Engineers, 

Inc., 106 F.3d 949,956 (10th Cir. 1997). Mr. Gossett has not produced any 

evidence to rebut the defendant's evidence that notice of the Appeals Council 

decision was sent on April 18, 2002 and that Mr. Gossett did not contact the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-7105 Document: 010110642413 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 4
Social Security Administration to request an extension of time to file his civil 

action. The district court did not err in dismissing Mr. Gossett's complaint. 

Liberally construing Mr. Gossett's prose appellate brief, it also appears as 

though he is challenging the district court's decision to grant an extension of time 

for the defendant to file its motion to dismiss and the decision to deny his motion 

for default judgment. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in granting the defendant's request for an extension of time to file its 

motion to dismiss, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), or in denying Mr. Gossett's motion 

for default judgment, see Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co., 327 F.3d 1115, 1124 

(I 0th Cir. 2003). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Mr. Gossett's motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-7105 Document: 010110642413 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 04-7105 Document: 010110642413 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 6