Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00012/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Cheryl Brannon
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

This includes five days for the mailing of the Appeals Council

notice. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.901, 422.210(c) (2005). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHERYL BRANNON, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

 CIVIL ACTION 06-0012-BH-M

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : 

Commissioner of

Social Security, : 

Defendant. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security

ruling which denied claims for disability insurance benefits and

Supplemental Security Income (Doc. 1). The action was referred

for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B). 

Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), arguing that Plaintiff failed to file this

action in a timely fashion (Doc. 9). Defendant correctly points

out that Plaintiff had sixty-five days1

 from the date of the

Appeals Council decision to file an action in this Court (Doc. 9,

p. 3). 

Plaintiff admits that her complaint was filed five days too

Case 1:06-cv-00012-M Document 13 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 3
2

late (Doc. 12, p. 1). Plaintiff’s attorney goes on to state that

the error was his—or, at least, the fault of his staff—and that

it would be an “extreme hardship” on his client for her to suffer

a dismissal of this action because of his error (Doc. 12, Ashbee

Affidavit). 

The Court is persuaded by Plaintiff’s attorney’s admission

and finds that dismissing this action, under these circumstances,

would not serve the public notions of justice or fairness. The

Undersigned notes that this particular issue has arisen only one

other time in the nineteen years of service on the bench, so

there is no concern that the floodgates will be opened to latefilers. 

Therefore, it is recommended that Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 9) be denied and that this action proceed to

judgment on the merits.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

Case 1:06-cv-00012-M Document 13 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 3
3

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 25th day of April, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00012-M Document 13 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 3