- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID ERIC DEWBERRY

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-11967

v. DISTRICT JUDGE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

COMMISSIONER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VIRGINIA MORGAN

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action for judicial review of defendant’s decision denying plaintiff’s

application for social security benefits. The Commissioner found that plaintiff was not disabled,

and, therefore, not entitled to either disability insurance benefits under Title II nor supplemental

security income (SSI) under the Social Security act. Plaintiff now seeks to appeal this denial.

Plaintiff filed his complaint seeking judicial review of that Commissioner’s final decision on

May 22, 2009. However, the final decision had been issued on April 23, 2007.

This is not the first application for disability that plaintiff has filed. He file concurrent

applications for disability and SSI in January 2002. These were denied on June 25, 2003 and not

appealed. Plaintiff now seeks a belated appeal on the current application. On this record,

nothing prevents plaintiff from filing a third application and beginning proceedings anew before

the agency. 

2:09-cv-11967-BAF-VMM Doc # 16 Filed 11/30/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 56
- 2 -

Analysis

Judicial review of Social Security disability denials is authorized by § 205 (g) and (h) of

the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) and (h). Those provisions permit judicial review

under certain conditions. 

Section 405 (g) provides: 

An individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 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 Commissioner of Social

Security may allow.

Section 405 (g) provides that 

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. No action

against the United States, the Commissioner of Social Security or any officer or

employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28, U.S.C., to

recover on any claim arising under this subchapter.

Congress has thus stated explicitly that judicial review is permitted only in accordance

with the above statute. Such statute is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for judicial review. The

60 day statute of limitations provided by Congress serves to “move millions of cases to speedy

resolution in a bureaucracy that processes millions of cases annually.” Bowen v. City of New

York 476 U.S. 467, 481 (1986).

The term “mailing” has been interpreted by the Commissioner and the courts as the date

an individual receives notice of the Appeals Council’s denial of request for review or its decision

in the case. See, 20 CFR § 416.1401, 422.210 (c). In other words, the claimant must file a civil

action in federal district court within 60 days after receiving the Appeals Council’s notice.

2:09-cv-11967-BAF-VMM Doc # 16 Filed 11/30/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 57
- 3 -

In this case the Appeals Council’s notice was dated April 23, 2007. Plaintiff was

required to file his civil action on or before June 29, 2007. However, plaintiff did not file his

complaint in this court until almost 2 years later, that is, until May 22, 2009. Plaintiff has not

filed a response to defendant’s Motion to Dismiss which was filed in August 2009. However

plaintiff did file a statement of his new address on September 22, 2009. No reasons are set forth

in any pleading for his failure to timely appeal. 

While in some circumstances, where good cause is shown, the time period for filing may

be extended, no such circumstances are shown here. Plaintiff’s claim for disability was based on

residual pain in his right lower leg and foot due to a torn Achilles tendon. (ALJ’s opinion D/E

13-2, page 9) At the time of the ALJ’s opinion, plaintiff was 35 years old with two years of

college. There is no claim of disabling mental impairment or intellectual deficit justifying this

delay. Neither is there any indication that plaintiff made a request to extend time to the Appeals

Council. Without such good cause established to extend the time to file and without a complaint

filed within the 60 day time period, this Court is without jurisdiction to review the denial.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and

the case be dismissed with prejudice. 

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to act within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific

objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v.

2:09-cv-11967-BAF-VMM Doc # 16 Filed 11/30/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 58
- 4 -

Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues,

but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to

this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir.

1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). 

Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this

magistrate judge.

Within ten (10) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections, the

opposing party may file a response. The response shall be no more than 20 pages in length

unless, by motion and order, the page limit is extended by the court. The response shall address 

each issue contained within the objections specifically and in the same order raised.

s/Virginia M. Morgan 

Virginia M. Morgan

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: November 30, 2009

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and David

Dewsbury via the Court’s ECF System and/or U. S. Mail on November 30, 2009.

s/J. Johnson 

Case Manager to

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

2:09-cv-11967-BAF-VMM Doc # 16 Filed 11/30/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 59