Albert Kinkle v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 14-3708 (7th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 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, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. v. No. 14 C 4468 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Matthew F. Kennelly, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Judge. Defendant Appellee. 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). 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
