Jemi-Alade III v. Social Security Administration

UNITED S TATES DISTRICT C OURT
S OUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
T UNJI J EMI-ALADE III,
Plaintiff,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION N UMBER
4:25-cv-03176
J UDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER A DOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tunji Jemi-Alade III proceeds here pro se. He
filed this lawsuit, seeking judicial review of the decision by
the Administrative Law Judge that he wasn’t required to
reimburse 	the 	Social 	Security 	Administration 	for
purported overpayment of benefits. Dkt 8. The matter was
referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Christina A.
Bryan. Dkt 5.
Plaintiff frames his complaint as a request for judicial
review. But he ultimately seeks a determination that he is
not disabled and an order that the SSA provide him
documents allowing him access to a bank account located
in his name. Dkt 8 at 4–5.
Pending is a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	by 	Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security. Dkt 11. It maintains that
Plaintiff hasn’t exhausted his administrative remedies
pursuant to 20 CFR §404.900(a), thus requiring dismissal
without prejudice. Id at 4–5.
Judge Bryan recommends that the motion to dismiss
be granted for failure to exhaust the SSA administrative
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 14 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
procedures prior to seeking judicial review of the ALJ’s
decision. Dkt 13.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a 	magistrate 	judge 	to 	which 	a 	party 	has 	specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The 	Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	of 	the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 13.
The motion to dismiss by Defendant Commissioner of
Social Security is GRANTED. Dkt 11.
All claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE .
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on June 12, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 14 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2