Laifer et al v. Social Security Administration Employees et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Warren Laifer et al.
v. 	Case No. 17-cv-425-PB
Social Security Administration
Employees, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Following preliminary review, the undersigned recommended
that the district judge dismiss all the plaintiffs’ claims
except those based upon the reduction of their Social Security
benefits. 	See doc. no. 4.1 	With respect to those claims, the
court noted that the plaintiffs had not alleged that they had
exhausted their administrative remedies, as required by the
Social Security Act (the Act), see Wilson v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., 671 F.2d 673, 677 (1st Cir. 1982), but ordered
that they file an amended complaint within 30 days showing that
they had received a final decision from the Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration and timely filed the
present action. 	See doc. no. 5. 	When the plaintiffs did not
file an amended complaint within the requisite time, the court
1 The district judge approved this recommendation. 	See doc.
no. 6.
Case 1:17-cv-00425-PB Document 7 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 2

2
sua sponte extended the deadline to January 17, 2018.
Nearly eight months later, the plaintiffs have not filed an
amended complaint and have not sought additional time to do so.
The court therefore concludes, for the reasons stated in the
prior Report and Recommendation, that the plaintiffs have failed
to allege that they exhausted their administrative remedies. 	As
exhaustion is typically a jurisdictional prerequisite under the
Act, see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 327 (1976), the
court recommends that the district judge dismiss the plaintiffs’
remaining claims for failure to exhaust. 	See doc. no. 4 at 8-9.
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. 	Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation 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); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
September 12, 2018
cc: 	Warren Laifer, pro se
Gail Anne Laifer, pro se
Case 1:17-cv-00425-PB Document 7 Filed 09/12/18 Page 2 of 2