Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security (Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
DUSHUN ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:21-cv-0308-KKM-CPT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER Dushun Robinson sued the Social Security Commissioner because the Commissioner refused to dispense disability benefits to Robinson while he was in prison. (Doc. 1; Doc. 31 at 2.) The Commissioner moves to dismiss, arguing that Robinson did
not exhaust the administrative appeal process before filing suit, so this Court does not have jurisdiction over Robinson’s claim. (Doc. 20.) By all appearances, Robinson agrees. He admits that he “neglected a step in procedure” and seeks to dismiss this action. (Doc. 26.) The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the motions. (Doc. 27.) The Magistrate Judge confirmed that Robinson intends to withdraw the suit and acknowledges that he
must seek administrative remedies before filing in this Court. (Doc. 31 at 3; Doc. 30.) Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court treat Robinson’s filing as
a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41, deny the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss
as moot, and close this case. The fourteen-day deadline for Robinson or the Commissioner
to object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation has passed (with an additional three days permitted for mailing). Neither party objected. Nevertheless, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d
603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (Steele, J.). After a complete review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Robinson
means to voluntarily dismiss. (Doc. 26, Doc. 30.) Because the Commissioner has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment, such a dismissal is self-executing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Matthews v. Gaither, 902 F.2d 877, 880 (11th Cir. 1990) (“The dismissal [under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)] is effective immediately upon the filing of a
written notice of dismissal, and no subsequent court order is required.”). Recognizing that Robinson dismissed this case, the Court denies the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss as
moot and directs the Clerk to close this case. Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. (Doc. 31.) 2. The Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. (Doc. 20.)
3. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE any pending motions and deadlines and to CLOSE this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 1, 2022.
patron Mizelle United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-commissioner-of-social-security-flmd-2022.