STANLEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, No. 2:2014cv00313 - Document 20 (D. Me. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 8 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (nwd)

Download PDF
STANLEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE GEORGE STANLEY, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:14-cv-313-JDL ) ) ) ) ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE George Stanley (“Stanley”) is the pro se plaintiff in this action against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). He alleges that he was assaulted by a security guard at an SSA facility and that the SSA wrongfully excluded him from their offices and otherwise mistreated him. ECF No. 1. On December 17, 2014, Magistrate Judge John H. Rich III (the “Magistrate Judge”) issued a Recommended Decision finding that several but not all of the claims in Stanley’s complaint should be dismissed. ECF No. 8. Stanley has objected, ECF No. 13, and so I review the Magistrate Judge’s decision de novo, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b) (2014). After careful consideration, I adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. The Magistrate Judge determined that Stanley’s claim or claims for assault and his claim or claims that may reasonably be construed to assert claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) should proceed. ECF No. 8 at 3. However, the Magistrate Judge also concluded that the claims in Stanley’s complaint related Dockets.Justia.com to his allegations that the SSA treated him poorly or rudely should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id. Stanley disputes this decision on the grounds that the “actions of [the SSA] must be viewed as a whole” and “the assault cannot be truncated from [the] overall reach of [the] complaint[.]” ECF No. 13 at 1. Although evidence of acts of rudeness by SSA employees may prove to be relevant in connection with Stanley’s ADA claims and any claims stemming from the assault, they do not, standing alone, give rise to an independent cause of action. See ECF No. 8 at 2-3. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. The claims made in Stanley’s complaint other than the claim or claims for assault and the claim or claims that may reasonably be construed to assert cognizable claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) are DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 6, 2015 /s/ Jon D. Levy U.S. District 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.