Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard Crosby
v. Civil No. 24-cv-166-LM-TSM
Social Security Administration
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Richard Crosby, proceeding pro se, has filed a fifth suit in this court, attempting to change
the outcome of the Social Security Administration’s decision that denied him benefits in 2015.
The court previously dismissed his suits. See Crosby v. Social Security Administration, 22-cv-
234-SE, Op. No. 2022 DNH 099 (D.N.H. Aug. 18, 2022); Crosby v. Social Security
Administration, 22-cv-469-SM (D.N.H. Nov. 21, 2022) (app’d Dec. 1, 2022); Crosby v. Social
Security Administration, 23-cv-108-LM (D.N.H. Feb. 10,, 2023) (app’d Mar. 6, 2023 and aff’d
July 14, 2023); Crosby v. Social Security Administration, 23-cv-379-SE-AJ (D.N.H. Aug. 14,
2023) (app’d Aug. 30, 2023). In the current case, Crosby seeks an order to compel the Social
Security Administration (“SSA”) to provide him with unspecified documents and information. The
case is referred for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Local rule 4.3(d)(2).
LEGAL STANDARD
The court conducts a preliminary review of complaints filed by plaintiffs, like Crosby, who
are permitted to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d)(2). The court may dismiss claims, sua sponte, if 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 id. Because Crosby proceeds pro se, the court construes his filings liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Case 1:24-cv-00166-LM-TSM Document 4 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 3

2
DISCUSSION
To avoid the outcome in his four prior cases in this court, Crosby does not directly
challenge the SSA’s 2015 decision, denying his application for benefits.1 Instead, he seeks an order
to compel the SSA to release documentation related to and provide explanations for the decision
and other related relief, citing generally 42 U.S.C. § 405 and 42 U.S.C. § 1306. Neither provides
grounds for the relief Crosby seeks.
Section 405, titled “Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments,” provides the
authority, process, and procedures for social security benefits. “The findings and decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were
parties to such hearing” and cannot be reviewed except as provided in § 405(g). § 405(h). A civil
action for judicial review must be commenced within 60 days after notice is mailed of the
Commissioner’s decision. § 405(g); see also Crosby v. SSA, 2023 WL 2505116, at *1-*2 (D.N.H.
Feb. 10, 2023) (citing Crosby v. SSA, 2022 WL 3544370, at *1-*2 (D.N.H. Aug. 18, 2022)).
Crosby cites no subpart of § 405 that requires the SSA to release documents and exhibits
from social security proceedings. Therefore, to the extent Crosby seeks review of the 2015
decision or a related decision not to provide documents or information, this action was filed long
after the 60-day limit. Otherwise, Crosby has not alleged facts to show that he may bring a civil
action under § 405 to compel the SSA to release documents or information.
Although Crosby cites no specific part of § 1306 to support the relief he requests, § 1306(b)
provides that the SSA may comply with requests for disclosure of information under certain
1Background information about Crosby’s application for social security benefits and the SSA’s
decisions is provided in Crosby’s previous cases. See Crosby v. SSA, 2023 WL 5614951, at *1
(D.N.H. Aug. 14, 2023); Crosby v. SSA, 2023 WL 2505116, at *1-*2 (D.N.H. Feb. 10, 2023);
Crosby v. SSA, 2022 DNH 099, 2022 WL 3544370, at *1-*2 (D.N.H. 2022).
Case 1:24-cv-00166-LM-TSM Document 4 Filed 06/24/24 Page 2 of 3

3
circumstances. Disclosure must be authorized by regulations under that chapter. In addition,
payment must be made in advance. Crosby has not alleged that the information he seeks is
authorized to be disclosed by appropriate regulations or that he made the required advance
payment. In addition, disclosure under § 1306 is not mandatory. Therefore, Crosby has not alleged
facts that would support the relief he seeks under § 1306.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district court judge should dismiss Crosby’s complaint (doc.
no. 1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of
receipt of this notice. See Fed. 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).
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
June 24, 2024
cc: Richard Crosby, pro se.
Case 1:24-cv-00166-LM-TSM Document 4 Filed 06/24/24 Page 3 of 3