Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thompson v. United States of America Social Security Administration

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

March 7, 2018

RAYMOND D. THOMPSON PLAINTIFF
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA) SSA Administrative Law Judge Bradley L. Davis DEFENDANTS

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          JOE J. VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INSTRUCTIONS

         The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

         If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

         1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

         2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

         3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

         From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

         Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

         DISPOSITION

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Raymond D. Thompson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Bradley L. Davis have violated his constitutional right to due process. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of being awarded monthly disability benefits and “equity/damages . . . to include the cost of the litigation of this cause of action.” (Id. at 13.) After careful review of Plaintiff's Complaint, I find it should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

         II. SCREENING

         An action in which the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis may be dismissed “at any time” upon a determination that (1) it is frivolous or malicious; (2) it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to this provision, a federal court may sua sponte dismiss a claim that is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or one that is “clearly baseless” as a matter of fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). The in forma pauperis statute has been applied to dismiss claims prior to service in prisoner and non-prisoner cases alike. See Zessin v. Neb. Health & ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.