THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00380-MR-WCM

WILLIE WATKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) O R D E R ) ) KILOLOL KIJAKAZI, Acting ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14]; the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 17]; the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation regarding the disposition of those motions [Doc. 20]; and the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 21]. Pursuant to

(b) and a specific Order of referral of the District Court, the Honorable W. Carleton Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider these pending motions in the above- captioned action and to submit to this Court a recommendation for the disposition of these motions.

On January 21, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 20], recommending that this Court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying the Plaintiff’s

claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. [Doc. 20]. The parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. The Plaintiff timely filed Objections on

February 4, 2022. [Doc. 21]. In his Objections, the Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that the Plaintiff could not show harm from the

violation of his constitutional rights. [Doc. 21 at 7-10]. Relying upon the recent Supreme Court decisions of Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

(2020) and Collins v. Yellen,

(2021), the Plaintiff had argued before the Magistrate Judge that

limitations on the President’s authority to remove a Social Security Commissioner set forth in

(a)(3) violated the separation of powers. [Doc. 15 at 5-8]. The Magistrate Judge rejected the Plaintiff’s

argument, concluding that the Plaintiff was required to demonstrate a nexus 2 between the unconstitutional removal restriction and the denial of his claim for disability benefits, but that the Plaintiff had failed to do so. [Doc. 20 at 15-

16]. While the Plaintiff argued that harm could be presumed from the constitutional violation itself, [Doc. 15 at 5-8], the Magistrate Judge concluded otherwise, citing several decisions rejecting similar arguments

[Doc. 20 at 14-16]. In his Objections, the Plaintiff raises an entirely new constitutional issue citing a case he never previously cited—Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd.,

(2010)—as well as

statutes governing the removal of administrative law judges,

(a)-(b). [Doc. 21 at 7-10]. The Plaintiff argues that the so-called “dual- layer protection” provided by these statutory provisions is unconstitutional

and caused him harm. [Id. at 7]. The Plaintiff never raised this “dual-layer protection” issue before the Magistrate Judge. As such, the Plaintiff’s Objections in this regard are improper and are overruled. See, e.g., Hubbard v. Stirling, No. 8:19-cv-

01314-SAL,

, at *2 (D.S.C. Sept. 3, 2020) (“Because Defendants’ objections raise entirely new issues rather than new arguments, they are overruled”).

3 After careful consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 20] and the Plaintiffs Objections thereto [Doc. 21], the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact are correct and that his proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current

case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby overrules the Plaintiffs Objections and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Commissioner's decision should be affirmed. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 20] is ACCEPTED; the Plaintiffs Objections thereto [Doc. 21] are OVERRULED; the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] is DENIED; the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 17] is GRANTED; and the decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED. This case is hereby DISMISSED. A judgment shall be entered simultaneously herewith. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: March 17, 2022 ie ee Chief United States District Judge AS