Jordan v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 4:2009cv04131 - Document 9 (W.D. Ark. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on May 10, 2010. (cap)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION NORMAN JORDAN vs. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 4:09-cv-04131 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending now before this Court is Defendant s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 8).1 Plaintiff has not responded to this motion. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. (Doc. No. 4). Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this Memorandum Opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter. 1. Background: Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that Plaintiff s complaint was untimely filed. Defendant states the complaint was not filed within the statutory time limitation of sixty days following the Commissioner s notice to Plaintiff that his request for review was denied. According to Defendant, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff s request for review on July 22, 2009. Plaintiff, therefore, should have commenced his civil action on or before September25, 2009. The Complaint in this case was actually filed on December 7, 2009. 2. Discussion: The only civil action an individual may bring on any claim arising under Title II or Title XVI 1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation Doc. No. of the Social Security Act is an action to review the final decision the Commissioner has made after hearing the case. An individual must commence that action within sixty days after receiving notice of the Commissioner s final decision or within such further time as allowed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner may extend the time for instituting a civil action upon a claimant s request and showing of good cause. See 42 U.S.C. 405(g); 20 C.F.R. ยง 422.210(c). Plaintiff received notice the Appeals Council denied his request for review on July 22, 2009. (Doc. No. 8-1, Pg 15). Based on this, Plaintiff should have commenced his civil action on or before September 25, 2009. This date includes the additional five days for receipt by mail. Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 7, 2009. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff has made no showing that a request for extending the time to file was sought by Plaintiff in this matter. Based on this, the Court finds Plaintiff s complaint was not filed timely and should be dismissed 3. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, Defendant s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED . A judgment incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58. ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2010. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
