UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CONRAD RICHARD CIVIL ACTION VERSUS ANDREW SAUL, ET AL. NO. 20-00804-BAJ-RLB

RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28). Plaintiff filed suit, pro se, on November 24, 2020, seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. (Doc. 1). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). (Doc. 21). Following, Plaintiff filed an unnamed Motion (Doc. 23) and a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 25). The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation urges that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff's pending Motions be denied as moot. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a letter (Doc. 30), a Memoranda in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31), and Exhibits (Doc. 32) in support of the action. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 83), which the Magistrate Judge denied. (Doc. 34). Having carefully considered the underlying Complaint, the Report and Recommendation at issue, and related filings, the Court agrees with the findings and determinations of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff asserts a claim for damages in the

amount of $250,000 from the Social Security Administration for “underpayment and charges of overpayment.” (Doc. 1 at 1). The Court, however, finds that, for Plaintiff's claim of underpayment of benefits, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claim. In addition, the Court construes Plaintiffs claim for “charges of overpayment” as an attempt to revisit the Court’s decision in Richard v. Comm’r of SSA, No. 3:15-cv- 00244-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. Aug. 16, 2017). After reviewing the record in Richard, the Court finds that no timely notice of appeal was filed and that, therefore, the judgment in Aichard is final and no longer appealable. Thus, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim of “charges of overpayment.” Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits “a party to chalienge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case.” Ramming v. United States,

(5th Cir. 2001). “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.”

The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist. fd. Plaintiffs additional filings following the Report and Recommendation (Docs. 29-33) do not overcome Plaintiffs burden to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim. Within Plaintiffs additional filings, Plaintiff

denies Defendant’s contention and the Magistrate Judge’s finding that he has not taken affirmative steps to appeal the review through the Social Security Administration. (Doc. 31 at 2). Plaintiff provided copies of documents provided by various organizations and individuals, including the Social Security Administration—correspondence, court documents from the instant case, and informational documents, among others. (Docs. 31-32). Plaintiff, however, has not sufficiently alleged that a valid, pending claim exists before the Social Security Administration or that the Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. Within Plaintiffs additional filings, Plaintiff provides several filled-in “Request for Reconsideration” forms provided to him by the Social Security Administration. (Docs. 31-1 at 21-26; 32 at 30). The forms, however, are dated after the filing of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In addition, the allegations contained in the forms appear to seek relief from the Social Security Administration based on the Plaintiff's instant proceedings in Federal Court, not an underlying decision of the Social Security Administration. Further, the provided □ forms are only completed by Plaintiff. There is no evidence or indication that the forms were appropriately filed with the Social Security Administration. The sections “To Be Completed By Social Security Administration” remain blank. Taking into account the additional filings of Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving his exhaustion of administrative remedies,

the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim of underpayment, or the Court’s jurisdiction over the claim of overpayment. Having carefully considered the underlying Complaint, the Report and Recommendation at issue, and related filings, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion herein. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) be and is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, each party to bear its own costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs pending Motions (Docs. 28 and 25) be and are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this Maay of October, 2022

Ata. i JUDGE BRIAN A. pACy SON UNITED STATES BISYRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA