Robbins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Clyde Robbins, Jr., 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action H-22-2054
§
Frank Bisignano,1 	§
Commissioner of the 	§
Social Security Administration, 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff Clyde Robbins has filed a Motion to Reopen
this case. What he actually seeks is relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) from the court’s September 14, 2023 Final
Judgment 	granting 	the 	Commissioner’s 	motion 	for 	summary
judgment and dismissing this case with prejudice, ECF No. 22.
This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge
for all pretrial purposes. ECF No. 26. The court recommends that
the motion be DENIED.
On September 24, 2023, Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon
entered a Memorandum and Order affirming the Commissioner’s
decision to deny Robbins social security benefits. ECF No. 21. The
Commissioner’s November 9, 2021 Decision found Robbins was not
disabled from July 10, 2020, to the date of the decision. Tr. 37. In
the instant motion, Robbins cites medical records dated between
December 2024 and February 2025 and argues that such records
are new and material evidence that would warrant relief under
Rule 60(b).
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Frank J. Bisignano is substituted as the
defendant in this suit.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:22-cv-02054 Document 30 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Rule 60(b)(2) allows the court to relieve a person from a final
judgment when evidence is newly discovered after the time to file
a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(b). First, here, the evidence
is dated years after the period of disability, so it is not clear that
the evidence is even relevant. In any event, a motion 	under
Rule 60(b)(2) must be filed no more than a year after the final
judgment is entered. The instant motion is well more than a year
late and must be denied.
Plaintiff also invokes Rule 60(b)(6), which allows the court
to relieve a party from the effect of a final judgment for “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Other than insisting that the court
should consider evidence that is outside the record that was before
the district court, Robbins does not cite any reason that the court
should 	grant 	the 	extraordinary 	relief 	of 	vacating 	a 	properly
entered final judgment. The court notes that Robbins does not
specifically state that the final judgment was in error. Judge
Sheldon 	had 	denied 	Robbins’ 	permission 	to 	appeal 	without
prepayment of costs because he had “fail[ed] to demonstrate his
appeal [was] not frivolous.” ECF No. 24 at 1.
Robbins also cites 20 C.F.R. § 404.988 as authority for the
proposition that the court may reopen this case. That section sets
forth the conditions under which the Commissioner may reopen a
decision 	under 	20 	C.F.R. 	§ 	404.987. 	Those 	sections 	apply 	to
reopening the administrative decision. They do not apply in federal
court.
The 	court 	recommends 	that 	the 	Motion 	to 	Reopen 	be
DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this report
and recommendation to file written objections. 	See 	28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Failure to timely file objections will
preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal conclusions,
Case 4:22-cv-02054 Document 30 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
except for plain error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147–49
(1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988).
Signed at Houston, Texas on March 31, 2026.
___________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:22-cv-02054 Document 30 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3