United States Court of Appeals FortheSeventhCircuit Chicago,Illinois60604… v. MICHAELJ.ASTRUE, CommissionerofSocialSecurity

United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
ArguedNovember10,2010
DecidedDecember10,2010
Before
RICHARDD.CUDAHY,CircuitJudge
DANIELA.MANION,CircuitJudge
DIANES.SYKES,CircuitJudge
No.101159
MICHAELBYRONGAGE,
PlaintiffAppellant,
v.
MICHAELJ.ASTRUE,
CommissionerofSocialSecurity,
DefendantAppellee.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,
EasternDivision.
No.08C5040
SusanE.Cox,
MagistrateJudge.
ORDER
MichaelGagefailedtoappealthejudgmentagainsthiminhisSocialSecurity
disabilitybenefitssuit,andnearlythreemonthslaterfiledapostjudgmentmotionseeking
permissiontochallengethemeritsoftheunderlyingdecision.Thedistrictcourtdeniedthe
motion,andweaffirm.
GagesustainedanelbowinjuryandappliedforSocialSecuritydisabilityinsurance
benefits.AfteranadministrativelawjudgedeniedhisapplicationandtheAppealsCouncil
affirmed,hesoughtjudicialreview.Amagistratejudge,proceedingwiththeparties’
consent,ruledforthecommissionerinacomprehensive27pagedecisionandentered
judgmentonAugust17,2009.Inherorder,themagistratejudgefoundthattheALJdidnot
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No.101159 Page2
erringivingcontrollingweighttotheopinionsofGage’streatingphysician,inquestioning
thevocationalexpertatthehearing,increditingGage’sallegationsofsubjectivepain,and
inanalyzingtherepresentativesamplejobsavailabletoGage.
OnAugust27Gagefiledan“objection”tothedecision,arguingthatthemagistrate
judge“fail[ed]toaddressportionsofthemedicalevidencethatwerefavorableto[him],”
improperlycreditedthevocationalexpert’stestimonythathecouldusehisinjuredarmas
an“assist,”and“ignored”histestimonyabouthispain.GageinvokedFederalRuleofCivil
Procedure72(b),therulegoverningamagistratejudge’sresponsibilitieswhenassignedto
heardispositivepretrialmatters.FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(1).Gagefiledthis“objection”with
thedistrictjudgeoriginallyoverseeingthecase.OnOctober28themagistratejudgestruck
this“objection,”seeN.D.Ill.L.R.78.2,becauseGagehadfileditwithoutprovidingthe
required“noticeofpresentmentspecifyingthedateandtimeonwhich,andjudgebefore
whom,theobjectionistobepresented,”seeN.D.Ill.L.R.5.3(b).
OnNovember9Gagefiledaselfstyled“MotiontoReinstateObjection”beforethe
magistratejudge,thistimeprovidingpropernoticeandassertingthathisoriginal
“objection”shouldbe“reinstated”underFederalRuleofCivilProcedure59(e)aswellas
Rule72(b).Gagedidnotexplainwhyeitherruleentitledhimtorelief;hemerelyquoted
thoserulesandarguedobliquelythattheirrequirementswere“consistent.”Themagistrate
judgeheldahearingonGage’smotionand,afterexplainingthatshehad“consideredthis
caseverycarefully,”pronouncedthatshewasdenyinghismotion.Thecourtenteredthe
orderonNovember20.
TwomonthslaterGagefiledanoticeofappeal,whichpromptedourcourttoissue
anorderclarifyingthathisappealwastimelyonlyastothemagistratejudge’sNovember
20orderdenyinghispostjudgmentmotion.OurorderpointedoutthatGagehadfailedto
appealtheAugust17judgmentwithintherequired60days.SeeFED. R. A PP. P.4(a)(1)(B),
(a)(5).
Onappeal,Gagedisregardsourorderlimitingthescopeofthisappealandcontinues
topressargumentsrelatingtothemeritsoftheunderlyingdecision.Hearguesthatheis
entitledtoaddressthemeritsoftheunderlyingdecisionbecause,hecontends,atthe
hearingonhispostjudgmentmotionthemagistratejudge“consideredandrejected”his
argumentsaboutthemeritsofthatdecision.
ThemagistratejudgedidnotabuseherdiscretionwhenshedeniedGage’spost
judgmentmotion(his“MotiontoReinstateObjection”).Thereisconfusionhereastohow
themotionshouldbeconstrued—theFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,ofcourse,donot
recognizea“motiontoreinstateobjection”—butthemotionmightbetreatedasoneunder

-- 2 of 3 --

No.101159 Page3
Rule60(b),seekingrelieffromajudgment.F ED. R. CIV. P.60(b).Gagestatedthathefiled
hismotionunderRule59(e),butmoreimportantthanthelabelonthemotionwasthe
timing.BecauseGagefiledhismotionmorethan10daysafterthejudgment,ithadtohave
beentreatedasamotionunderRule60(b)insteadof59(e).SeeKiswaniv.PhoenixSec.
Agency,Inc.,584F.3d741,74243(7thCir.2009).Thisdistinctionmattersbecausedenialsof
Rule60(b)motionsarereviewedunderanextremelydeferentialabuseofdiscretion
standard.See,e.g.,Eskridgev.CookCounty,577F.3d806,80809(7thCir.2009).Further,
Rule60(b)isanextraordinaryremedythatisnotdesignedtoaddresslegalerrorsmadeby
thedistrictcourt,seeTalanov.Nw.Med.FacultyFound.,Inc.,273F.3d757,762(7thCir.2001),
norisitasubstituteforanappeal.See,e.g.,Stollerv.PureFishingInc.,528F.3d478,480(7th
Cir.2008);Bellv.EastmanKodakCo.,214F.3d798,80001(7thCir.2000).Gage’smotion
failedtoargueanyofthegroundsspecifiedinRule60(b),sothemagistratejudgedidnot
abuseherdiscretionwhenshedeniedthemotion.
OurcourtalsolacksjurisdictiontoreviewthemeritsoftheunderlyingAugust17
ruling.Eventhoughthemagistratejudgemayhavereferredtothemeritsofthatruling
whenshedeniedGage’s“MotiontoReinstateObjection,”Gageneverappealedthe
judgmentwithinthe60daytimelimit.See28U.S.C.§§636(c)(3),1291,F ED. R. CIV. P.73(c).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --