Albert Kinkle v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 20, 2015*
Decided October 20, 2015
Before
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 14‐3708
ALBERT KINKLE,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant‐Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division.
No. 14 C 4468
Matthew F. Kennelly,
Judge.
O R D E R
Albert Kinkle appeals a judgment dismissing his civil suit against the Social
Security Administration as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
In 2014 Kinkle sued the Social Security Administration, alleging that the agency
cut off his benefits after trumping up fraud charges against him. The district court at
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 14‐3708 Page 2
screening, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), determined that any claim of false arrest or
malicious prosecution was time‐barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2401(b), and that any challenge to a cutoff of benefits was misplaced because Kinkle’s
benefits already had been reinstated, supplemented by an award of back benefits. The
court further noted that to the extent Kinkle was dissatisfied with the agency for
reducing his monthly benefit to satisfy an overpayment, he had not given the court any
indication that he had exhausted his administrative remedies before suing in federal
court.
On appeal Kinkle continues to suggest that the agency is improperly deducting
funds from his monthly benefits to satisfy an overpayment. But Kinkle still does not
allege that he has exhausted his administrative remedies as he must do before he may
challenge the recoupment of the overpayment in federal court. See Rodysill v. Colvin,
745 F.3d 947, 949 (8th Cir. 2014) (applying 20 C.F.R. § 404.506); Sipp v. Astrue, 641 F.3d
975, 979–80 (8th Cir. 2011) (applying 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.907).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --