Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_05-cv-00069/USCOURTS-ared-3_05-cv-00069-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:427 Social Security Benefits

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

CHARLOTTE M. TACKER Plaintiff

v. 3:05CV00069 JFF

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social

Security Administration, Defendant

ORDER

Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint as being time

barred for failure to commence within 60 days of the notice to

Plaintiff of the final decision by the Commissioner of Social

Security. Although time has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to

Defendant's motion.

The controlling statute, in pertinent part, specifies:

Any individual, after a final decision of the Secretary

made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective

of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such

decision by a civil action commenced within 60 days after

the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within

such further time as the Secretary may allow. . . .

42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

"No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or government

agency except as herein provided." 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

This timely filing requirement is a statute of limitations and

as such will bar suit unless it is tolled. Bowen v. City of New

York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986); Caran v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 720, 721 (8th

Cir. 1988).

Defendant has filed the affidavit of an appropriate Social

Case 3:05-cv-00069-JFF Document 9 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 2
 1

According to the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion, Plaintiff was

represented at the administrative hearing by her current attorney.

2

Security Administration official showing that the complaint was filed

outside the allowable time period. Also attached is a copy of the

notice sent to Plaintiff and her attorney1

 after the decision of the

Appeals Council. It specifies the period of time within which a

further appeal may be taken.

This is not a case "where the equities in favor of tolling the

limitations period are 'so great that deference to the agency's

judgment is inappropriate.'" Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. at

480. Indeed, since there are no facts pleaded or issues raised which

might toll the statute, this Court is bound to hold that Plaintiff's

action was untimely filed and thus barred. Caran v. Bowen, 834 F.2d

at 721.

The Court finds that this action was not timely filed, and it is

therefore barred.

Defendant's motion to dismiss (docket #8) is hereby granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2005.

 /s/ John F. Forster, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:05-cv-00069-JFF Document 9 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2