UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61216-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW

HANNIBAL MU BEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINSTRATION,

ANDREW SAUL,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 

Judge Snow (the “Report”) [DE 35], filed herein on March 11, 2021. The Court has conducted 

a de novo review of the Report [DE 35] and has carefully considered Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 

37]. The Court is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United 

States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the 

portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the 

specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be 

sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 

(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific 

objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de 

Case 0:20-cv-61216-WPD Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2021 Page 1 of 3
novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 

783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x 

at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the 

record and Plaintiff’s objections.

Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits on January 28, 2014. The application 

was denied initially and upon reconsideration. On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff requested 

reconsideration of this decision. On January 31, 2019, a redetermination notice was issued 

notifying Plaintiff the Commissioner had reaffirmed its prior decision. Plaintiff was advised that 

if he disagreed with the decision, he could request a hearing before an administrative law judge 

(“ALJ”). Plaintiff did not request an administrative hearing. 

Meanwhile, Plaintiff filed another application for SSI benefits on February 6, 2015. After 

an administrative hearing held on February 21, 2015, Plaintiff was awarded SSI benefits from his 

application date based on severe impairments of disorder of the lumbar spine, disorder of the 

cervical spine, hypertension, schizophrenia and substance addiction disorder. No appeal of this 

decision was filed. On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the 

decision of the Commissioner. 

On January 12, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion 

for Summary Judgment. [DE 30]. On March 11, 2021, Magistrate Judge Snow issued her 

Report, recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted and the instant case be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. See [DE 35]. Upon a careful review of the record, the Court agrees with the 

reasoning, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; the Court overrules 

Plaintiff’s Objections. Plaintiff may not seek judicial review because he did not exhaust his 

Case 0:20-cv-61216-WPD Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2021 Page 2 of 3
administrative remedies by completing the administrative appeal process and therefore has not 

received a final decision on the merits of his case after a hearing. See 42 U.S.C. ''405(g). 

Further, the Amended Complaint does not allege facts demonstrating exceptional circumstances

for waiver of the exhaustion requirement. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 35] is hereby APPROVED; 

2. Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 37] are hereby OVERRULED; 

3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 

30] is hereby GRANTED;

4. This case is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;

5. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY any pending motions as moot;

6. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address below. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 14th day of April, 2021.

Copies furnished to:

Magistrate Judge Snow

Counsel of record

Hannibal Mu Bey

General-Post 280086

Pembroke Pines, FL 33026

Case 0:20-cv-61216-WPD Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2021 Page 3 of 3