Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard S. Crosby
v. 	Case No. 23-cv-108-LM
United States Social
Security Administration
Report and Recommendation
Richard S. Crosby, who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a complaint to challenge the decision of the
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying his application
for social security benefits. The case was referred to the
undersigned for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) and Local Rule 4.3(d)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
On preliminary review, the court determines whether,
stripped of legal conclusions, and with all reasonable
inferences construed in the plaintiff's favor, the complaint
contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotation omitted). The court may dismiss claims sua
sponte if, among other things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a
defendant is immune from the relief sought, or the complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See LR
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LM Document 7 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 4

2
4.3(d)(1). The court construes pro se plaintiffs’ filings
liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Discussion
Crosby states that he is seeking judicial review, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security that denied his claim for supplemental
security income and disability insurance benefits. Docs. nos. 1
& 4. Crosby did not provide a copy of the decision or a date
when the decision issued. He alleges, however, that he filed a
claim for disability insurance benefits in March of 2013 and
that his claim was denied. He further alleges that errors were
made in his case pertaining to his income records before 2004.
In a previous case filed in this court, Crosby provided
more detail about his application for benefits, the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge, and the action taken by the
Appeals Council. Crosby v. Social Security Admin., No. 22-cv-
234-SE, 2022 DNH 099, 2022 WL 3544370, at *1-*2 (D.N.H. Aug. 18,
2022). Crosby’s application for disability insurance benefits
was initially granted in 2014. Id. The Appeals Council, however,
reopened Crosby’s case and determined based on a report from the
Internal Revenue Service that Crosby was not entitled to
benefits. Id. That decision issued on July 6, 2015. Id. The
court dismissed Crosby’s claim, seeking review of the decision
denying him benefits, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LM Document 7 Filed 02/10/23 Page 2 of 4

3
and because it was barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at
*2-*3.
As the court stated in Crosby’s previous case, a claimant
for social security benefits may move for review of a decision
denying benefits within sixty days after the decision is mailed
to the claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The time calculation may be
affected by circumstances pertaining to a final decision and
also may be extended by five days on initial decisions. Walker-
Butler v. Berryhill¸ 857 F.3d 1, 2-3 & 5 (1st Cir. 2017). 	The
statute of limitations on social security review is not
jurisdictional but is “a condition on the waiver of sovereign
immunity and thus must be strictly construed.” Bowen v. City of
New York, 476 U.S. 467, 478 (1986).
The final decision on Crosby’s social security application
was issued in 2015. Crosby filed his complaint on February 8,
2023. Therefore, he is barred by the statute of limitations from
seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s
decision denying his application for benefits.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss Crosby’s complaint (documents nos. 1 & 4) with
prejudice.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LM Document 7 Filed 02/10/23 Page 3 of 4

4
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Only those issues raised in the objection to this
Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. 	See id. 	Failure to file
any objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court's order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 10, 2023
cc: 	Richard S. Crosby, pro se
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LM Document 7 Filed 02/10/23 Page 4 of 4