Grant v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-08201
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Grant v. Commissioner, Judge Subramanian dismissed Grant’s Social Security benefits challenge as untimely because he filed more than two years after the final decision.
Michael Lavar Grant and the Commissioner of Social Security; the action was dismissed as untimely.
What happened
In Grant v. Commissioner of Social Security, Michael Lavar Grant challenged the decision denying him Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Netburn, who recommended dismissal.
The court said Grant did not object to that recommendation or ask for more time. Because the Social Security Act generally requires a lawsuit to be filed within 60 days after receiving the Commissioner’s final decision, the court noted that Grant filed this case more than two years later and did not respond to an order asking why the deadline should be extended.
Judge Arun Subramanian adopted the recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the action as untimely. The court also stated that Grant waived his right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Grant v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:23-cv-08201
- Subramanian
- Feb. 27, 2024
Background
Michael Lavar Grant sued under the Social Security Act to challenge the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s finding that he was not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits or eligible for Supplemental Security Income. The district court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Netburn for a report and recommendation.
Report and Recommendation and Waiver
Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended that the case be dismissed in a Report and Recommendation filed on February 2, 2024. The recommendation gave the parties 14 days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. No objections or request for an extension had been filed by the date of the district court’s order.
The court therefore stated that Grant waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation and to obtain appellate review. Even without objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Timeliness Ruling
The court agreed with Magistrate Judge Netburn that Grant’s claims had to be dismissed as time barred. The Social Security Act requires a civil action to be filed within 60 days after receipt of the Commissioner’s final decision. The court found that Grant filed this action more than two years after the final decision on his request for benefits. Grant had not requested an extension and had not responded to the court’s order to show cause—an order requiring him to explain why the filing period should be extended.
Disposition
Judge Arun Subramanian adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the action as untimely. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket No. 16, mail the order to Grant, and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.