Ronald J. Strong v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

2011 | Cited 0 times | D. Maine | February 15, 2011

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on January 26, 2011, her Recommended Decision (Docket No. 17). Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 19) on January 27, 2011. In addition, Plaintiff filed additional supporting documents (Docket Nos. 20 and 21) on February 8, 2011 and February 9, 2011, respectively. The additional documents reflect that Plaintiff's Complaint was served via certified mail to three locations: (1) the Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel on November 1, 2010 (Docket No. 20), (2) the Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice on November 3, 2010 (Docket No. 20) and (3) the United States Attorney for the District of Maine on October 28, 2010 (Docket No. 21). The Court notes that it is generally improper for any party to supplement the factual record in connection with objections to a recommended decision. However, in the interests of efficiency and justice, the Court has exercised its discretion to consider Plaintiff's supporting documents (Docket Nos. 20 & 21) in connection with its de novo review of the Recommended Decision.

To the extent that the record reflects the Social Security Administration received service on October 28, 2010, Defendant was required to file an answer or responsive pleading by December 27, 2010. The docket reflects that Defendant filed its responsive pleading on December 28, 2010 (Docket No. 13) thereby missing the deadline by one day. Nonetheless, the Court concludes Plaintiff is not entitled to default because the record does not establish Mr. Strong is entitled to the relief requested in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(d).

Having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, the Court has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision. The Court concurs with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and independently concludes on the current record that default is not appropriate.

1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED.

2. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Docket No. 14) is DENIED.

Dated this 15th day of February, 2011.

Back to top