Shine v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-00960
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Shine v. Commissioner, Judge Gardephe dismissed the Social Security case as time-barred after adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The ruling ended Towanda Shine’s federal action seeking review of the denial of disability insurance benefits. It granted the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion to dismiss because the action was filed after the statutory deadline.
What happened
In Shine v. Commissioner of Social Security, Towanda Shine asked the court to review the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner moved to dismiss, arguing that Shine filed too late.
The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion because Shine filed about two and a half months after the deadline. The district court found no clear error, concluding that Shine had not shown later receipt of the decision or circumstances supporting an extension of the deadline.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted the recommendation in full, granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint as time-barred, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Shine v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-00960
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 11, 2020
Background
Towanda Shine brought this action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Shine’s claims were time-barred. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued a report and recommendation recommending that the motion be granted and the action dismissed. The report explained that Shine had 60 days from receiving the Commissioner’s final decision to file suit. The Appeals Council’s letter was dated September 13, 2017, and Shine was presumed to have received it five days later, on September 18, 2017. Her filing deadline was therefore November 17, 2017, but she filed suit on February 2, 2018.
Objections and Timeliness Analysis
Neither party filed timely objections to the report and recommendation. Shine later submitted a one-page letter objecting to the recommendation and stating that she had a chronic and debilitating disability. Because the objection was late, the district court treated judicial review as waived but reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
The court found no error in Magistrate Judge Wang’s analysis. It concluded that Shine had not provided sufficient affirmative evidence to overcome the regulatory presumption that she received the Commissioner’s decision within five days of its issuance. The court also agreed that the record did not show an extraordinary circumstance supporting equitable tolling, which can extend a deadline when a litigant pursued rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
Ruling
Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint as time-barred, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.