Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_15-cv-00595/USCOURTS-almd-1_15-cv-00595-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

OTEY LANE JOHNSON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CASE NO. 1:15-cv-595-GMB 

 ) (WO – Do Not Publish) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

 Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for 

Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security (the “Commissioner”). Doc. 10. The Commissioner contends that the 

complaint filed by Plaintiff Otey Lane Johnson (“Johnson”) is due to be dismissed because 

it was not timely filed. On November 16, 2015, the court entered an order directing 

Johnson to show cause why the Commissioner’s motion should not be granted. Doc. 11. 

Johnson, who is represented by counsel, did not respond to the court’s show cause order, 

and the deadline to respond has passed. Accordingly, after a thorough review of the 

complaint, the Commissioner’s unopposed motion, and the relevant law, the court finds 

that the Commissioner’s motion (Doc. 10) is due to be GRANTED.1

 

 

 

1

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Local Rule 73.1 of the Middle District of Alabama’s Local 

Rules, the parties have consented to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge conducting 

all proceedings and ordering the entry of a final judgment in this case. Docs. 12 & 13. 

Case 1:15-cv-00595-GMB Document 14 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 Arguing that Johnson’s complaint is time-barred, the Commissioner seeks to 

dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or in the alternative for a 

summary judgment in the Commissioner’s favor pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. 

 If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings 

are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as 

one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a 

reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the 

motion. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Matters outside the pleadings have been presented and considered 

by the court—specifically, the Declaration of Patrick J. Herbst (Doc. 10-1), the Notice of 

Decision−Unfavorable (Doc. 10-2), and the Notice of Appeals Council Action (Doc. 10-3). 

Thus, the court will treat the Commissioner’s motion as one for summary judgment rather 

than as a motion to dismiss.2

 

 Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). However, “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return 

 

2

 Because the Commissioner’s motion was made, from the outset, as an alternative motion for 

summary judgment, there is no question that the parties have already been on notice that the court 

may treat the motion as one for summary judgment. The parties are also represented by counsel 

who “can be presumed to appreciate the need to file affidavits or other responsive materials and of 

the consequences of default.” Howell v. Dep’t of the Army, 975 F. Supp. 1293, 1297 (M.D. Ala. 

1997) (internal quotations omitted). “Additional or special protective notice is therefore not 

required before the court may proceed to treat the motion as one for summary judgment.” Id. 

Case 1:15-cv-00595-GMB Document 14 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 5
3 

a verdict for the nonmoving party,” summary judgment would be inappropriate. Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

II. FACTS 

 On March 5, 2014, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision denying 

Johnson’s claims for a period of disability and for disability insurance benefits. Doc. 10-2. 

Johnson requested review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council, and that request 

was denied on June 8, 2015. Doc. 10-3. The Appeals Council’s denial letter informed 

Johnson that there was “no reason under our rules to review” the ALJ’s decision and that 

the ALJ’s decision “is the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security in your 

case.” Doc. 10-3. In a section entitled “Time to File a Civil Action,” the Appeals Council’s 

letter further informed Johnson: 

 You have 60 days to file a civil action (ask for court review) [of the 

ALJ’s decision]. 

 The 60 days start the day after you receive this letter. We assume you 

received this letter 5 days after the date on it unless you show us that 

you did not receive it within the 5-day period. 

 If you cannot file for court review within 60 days, you may ask the 

Appeals Council to extend your time to file. You must have a good 

reason for waiting more than 60 days to ask for court review. You 

must make the request in writing and give your reason(s) in the 

request. 

Doc. 10-3.3

 It is undisputed that Johnson did not request an extension of time to file a civil 

action from the Appeals Council. Doc. 10-1. 

 

3

 Both the ALJ’s decision and the Appeals Council’s denial letter were mailed to Johnson and his 

non-attorney representative. Docs. 10-2 & 10-3. There is no evidence before the court indicating 

that these letters were not received by Johnson. 

Case 1:15-cv-00595-GMB Document 14 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 5
4 

 Combining sixty days with the presumed five days for receipt of the Appeals 

Council’s denial letter, the deadline for Johnson to file a civil action in this court was 

August 12, 2015. Johnson filed his complaint on August 14, 2015. Doc. 1. 

III. DISCUSSION 

 A lengthy discussion addressing the merits of the Commissioner’s motion is not 

necessary, as there is no dispute that Johnson did not timely file his claims in this court. 

“Congress provided that disappointed [Social Security] claimants must file suit in district 

court within sixty days (unless extended by the Secretary) in order to obtain judicial 

review.” Stone v. Heckler, 778 F.2d 645, 649 (11th Cir. 1985). The date of receipt is 

presumed to be five days after the date of the notice, unless there is a reasonable showing 

to the contrary. 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c). “The 60-day time limit is strictly enforced and 

claims filed even one day beyond the deadline have been dismissed as untimely.” Madry 

v. Colvin, No. 8:13-cv-312-T-23-DNF, 2013 WL 5408088, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2013) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

 The ALJ’s decision in Johnson’s case was made on March 5, 2014, and the Appeals 

Council denied review of that decision on June 8, 2015, making the ALJ’s decision final. 

Docs. 10-2 & 10-3. There is no evidence that Johnson requested an extension of his 

deadline to file a civil action from the Appeals Council. Doc. 10-1. Nor did Johnson 

present any arguments that his filing deadline should be equitably tolled.4

 As a result, 

 

4

 “The United States Supreme Court has concluded that the 60-day requirement set out in § 405(g) 

is not jurisdictional, but rather is a statute of limitations which is waivable by the parties and subject 

to the doctrine of equitable tolling.” Jackson v. Astrue, No. CA 07-0775-WS-C, 2008 WL 906573, 

at *2 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 1, 2008) (citing Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 478−80 (1986)). 

Case 1:15-cv-00595-GMB Document 14 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 5
5 

Johnson had sixty-five days from June 8, 2015—or until August 12, 2015—to file the 

instant action. Because Johnson did not file his complaint until August 14, 2015, his claims 

are untimely and must be dismissed. See Madry, 2013 WL 5408088 at *3−4 (dismissing a 

social security appeal filed in district court one day past the deadline because “Plaintiff did 

not file his Complaint within the 60 plus 5 day mailing time period, failed to request an 

extension of time, and failed to present any arguments as to equitable tolling”); see also 

Christides v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F. App’x 581 (11th Cir. 2012). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s 

Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) is 

GRANTED, and Plaintiff Otey Lane Johnson’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

 A separate final judgment will be issued in accordance with this Memorandum 

Opinion and Order. 

 DONE this 12th day of January, 2016. 

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00595-GMB Document 14 Filed 01/12/16 Page 5 of 5