Gilbert v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
SAM LOUIS GILBERT
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:25-cv-02557-SHL-jay
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff Sam Louis
Gilbert’s Complaint. (D.E. 17). Plaintiff has not responded. This case has been referred to the
United States Magistrate Judge for management of all pretrial matters and for determination and/or
report and recommendation as appropriate. (D.E. 9). For the following reasons, the Magistrate
Judge recommends the Commissioner’s Motion be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
DISMISSED.
Background
This case stems from the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) collection of an alleged
overpayment from Plaintiff Sam Louis Gilbert and his child in June 2023. (D.E. 2-1, PageID 10).
This is the second such case on this matter. Plaintiff previously filed a civil action against the
Commissioner of Social Security regarding this same alleged overpayment, which was dismissed
by this Court on July 12, 2024, because Plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies.
Gilbert v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 2:24-cv-02308-JPM-jay, 2024 WL 3740062 (W.D. Tenn.
June 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 3387145 (July 12, 2024). As the
Case 2:25-cv-02557-SHL-jay Document 19 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

2
Commissioner explains:
Both the determination of an overpayment and the disposition of a waiver request
are initial determinations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.902, so affected beneficiaries have
the right to a multi-step administrative review process that includes an ALJ decision
and opportunity to seek Appeals Council review. See id. § 404.900(a). After all
steps in that process have been completed, the agency will have made its final
decision that is subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.900(a)(5).
(D.E. 17, pp. 2-3). Plaintiff filed a Request for Reconsideration with the SSA on June 24, 2024
(D.E. No 2-1, p. 6), and before receiving a determination from the SSA, Plaintiff filed this action
on June 2, 2025. (D.E. 2). On September 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge held a status conference
to facilitate communication between the parties. Plaintiff was given until October 15, 2025, to
furnish the information requested by the SSA to continue the administrative review process, and
the Commissioner was allowed until November 17, 2025, to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
(D.E. 16).
The Commissioner reports that upon Plaintiff’s submission of needed forms and supporting
documentation, the SSA took corrective action by refunding $4,088 to Plaintiff and $2,888 to his
child. (D.E. 17, p. 5). Plaintiff was also advised that he could continue the administrative review
process by requesting reconsideration of the agency’s determination. (Id.) The Commissioner
indicates that upon reaching out to Plaintiff “to inquire if Plaintiff had received and reviewed the
notices and if the corrective action addressed his concerns such that the court case could be
dismissed,” Plaintiff expressed his dissatisfaction, “stating the amount refunded to him was less
than the amount owed to him, and further asking that the Court award him prejudgment interest
and punitive damages.” (D.E. 17, pp. 5-6). On November 20, 2025, the Commissioner filed a
supplemental declaration that the agency has now refunded the entire amount of the overpayments
collected from Plaintiff and his child. (D.E. 18).
Case 2:25-cv-02557-SHL-jay Document 19 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

3
Analysis
As this Court has previously explained to Plaintiff, both the determination of an
overpayment and the disposition of a waiver request are initial determinations. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.902. An initial determination is not reviewable in the courts, rather, a claimant must complete
a four-step administrative review process to obtain a judicially reviewable final decision. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.900(a); see Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 102 (1977) (“The Act and regulations thus
create an orderly administrative mechanism, with district court review of the final decision of the
[Commissioner].”). See Gilbert v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:24-CV-02308-JPM-JAY, 2024 WL
3740062, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. June 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-
02308-JPM-JAY, 2024 WL 3387145 (W.D. Tenn. July 12, 2024). The decision is not considered
a final agency decision that is subject to judicial review until all four steps have been completed.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a)(5).
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that there is an ALJ decision and an Appeals Council review
of the matter. There is no indication in agency files that he has taken these steps. The
Commissioner has not issued a “final decision ... made after a hearing,” as required for judicial
review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The undersigned therefore recommends that the Court dismiss
this Complaint for failure to state a claim. See L.N.P. v. Kijakazi, 64 F.4th 577 (4th Cir. 2023)
(explaining that such a dismissal is appropriate where the plaintiff had not received a final decision
that is subject to judicial review).
Case 2:25-cv-02557-SHL-jay Document 19 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

4
Conclusion
Because Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies to receive a final decision
that is subject to judicial review under § 405(g), the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Commissioner Motion be GRANTED and that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully Submitted this 19th day of December, 2025.
s/Jon A. York
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MUST BE FILED WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A
COPY OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). FAILURE
TO FILE THEM WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER
AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ANY FURTHER
APPEAL.
Case 2:25-cv-02557-SHL-jay Document 19 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID
<pageID>