UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MACHELLE COLLINS, Case No. 1:18-cv-268

Plaintiff, Black, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, REPORT AND

Defendant. RECOMMENDATION

On April 20, 2020, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation to the district 

judge recommending that the Court grant the Commissioner’s motion to enter an order and 

judgment reversing the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to the 

fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with remand to the Commissioner for further 

administrative proceedings. (Doc. 21). The undersigned recommended that on remand, the 

Appeals Council will take the necessary action to provide Ms. Collins with written notice of the 

decisions made on her Title II applications for Child Insurance Benefits (Survivor’s Claim) filed 

on December 12, 2011 and October 18, 2016 (Id.), thereby allowing Ms. Collins to pursue her 

administrative remedies on her claims for benefits. Ms. Collins was advised that she had 14 

days to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 21 at 3). Ms. Collins failed to 

file any objections, and on June 16, 2020, the district judge adopted the Report and 

Recommendation and entered judgment in this case. (Docs. 23, 24). Three months later, Ms. 

Collins filed a motion opposing the remand and her opposition to the motion to remand. (Docs. 

25, 26). For the reasons that follow, Ms. Collins’s motion should be denied.

Ms. Collins’s motion opposing the motion to remand was filed after the entry of 

judgment against her. Therefore, the Court liberally construes Ms. Collins’s pro se motion as a 

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 27 Filed: 11/20/20 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 142
2

request to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and/or motion for relief from 

judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

First, any request to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 is untimely. Pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within 28 days after 

entry of the judgment. Judgment was entered in this case on June 16, 2020. (Doc. 5). Ms. 

Collins= motion was filed three months after this deadline expired. Therefore, the motion to alter 

or amend the judgment should be denied as untimely.

Second, Ms. Collins has not shown that relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) is warranted. Rule 60(b) provides, in relevant part, for relief from a judgment “for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to 

move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or 

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) 

the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that 

has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other 

reason that justifies relief.” Rule 60(b)(6) applies “only in exceptional or extraordinary 

circumstances which are not addressed by the first five numbered clauses of the Rule.” Hopper 

v. Euclid Manor Nursing Home, 867 F.2d 291, 294 (6th Cir.1989). See also Fuller v. Quire, 916 

F.2d 358, 360 (6th Cir. 1990).

Ms. Collins has not addressed any of the six reasons set forth in Rule 60(b) to justify 

relief from judgment in this case. Nor has she alleged any facts which suggest that relief from 

judgment is warranted in this case. Therefore, it is recommended that relief from judgment in 

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 27 Filed: 11/20/20 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 143
3 

this case be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Ms. Collins’s motion opposing the remand (Doc. 25) be DENIED.

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an 

appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith 

and therefore deny Ms. Collins leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Ms. Collins remains free to 

apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 

800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 

277 (6th Cir. 1997). 

Date: 

 Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrate Judge 

United States District Court

11/20/2020

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 27 Filed: 11/20/20 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 144
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MACHELLE COLLINS, Case No. 1:18-cv-268

Plaintiff, Black, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after 

being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely 

motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the 

R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the 

objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after 

being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this 

procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 27 Filed: 11/20/20 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 145