govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-4_25-cv-03176-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
HOUSTON DIVISION 
 
TUNJI JEMI-ALADE III, 
  Plaintiff, 
 
 
 versus 
 
 
S
OCIAL SECURITY 
ADMINISTRATION, 
  Defendant. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
§ 
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 
4:25-cv-03176 
 
 
J
UDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE 
 
ORDER ADOPTING  
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, 143 0 (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

Passage view · GavelSight