Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03708/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03708-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Appellee
Albert Kinkle
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 20, 2015*

Decided October 20, 2015

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐3708

ALBERT KINKLE,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division.

No. 14 C 4468

Matthew F. Kennelly,

Judge.

O R D E R

Albert Kinkle appeals a judgment dismissing his civil suit against the Social

Security Administration as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. We affirm.

In 2014 Kinkle sued the Social Security Administration, alleging that the agency

cut off his benefits after trumping up fraud charges against him. The district court at

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 14-3708 Document: 20 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pages: 2
No. 14‐3708    Page 2

screening, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), determined that any claim of false arrest or

malicious prosecution was time‐barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2401(b), and that any challenge to a cutoff of benefits was misplaced because Kinkle’s

benefits already had been reinstated, supplemented by an award of back benefits. The

court further noted that to the extent Kinkle was dissatisfied with the agency for

reducing his monthly benefit to satisfy an overpayment, he had not given the court any

indication that he had exhausted his administrative remedies before suing in federal

court.   

On appeal Kinkle continues to suggest that the agency is improperly deducting

funds from his monthly benefits to satisfy an overpayment. But Kinkle still does not

allege that he has exhausted his administrative remedies as he must do before he may

challenge the recoupment of the overpayment in federal court. See Rodysill v. Colvin,

745 F.3d 947, 949 (8th Cir. 2014) (applying 20 C.F.R. § 404.506); Sipp v. Astrue, 641 F.3d

975, 979–80 (8th Cir. 2011) (applying 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.907).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-3708 Document: 20 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pages: 2