DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
JAMES PATRICK REEDOM, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,1 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 
AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 
Defendants. 
 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Civil No. 2015-21 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
James Patrick Reedom 
Fort Worth, Tx. 
 
Pro se. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
GÓMEZ, J. 
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the 
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court dismiss the 
complaint of James Patrick Reedom (“Reedom”) without prejudice 
for failure to state a claim.  
                                                          
1 The complaint in this matter named Carolyn Colvin, Commissioner of Social 
Security as a defendant. In a Freedom of Information Act action, the proper 
defendant is the agency. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), (f)(1). Accordingly, 
the Court will substitute the Social Security Administration as the real 
party in interest. See, e.g., Trani, Jr. v. U.S. Justice Dep't, No. CIV.A. 
04-0399 RCL, 2005 WL 3276178, at *1 (D.D.C. July 22, 2005) (“Because a FOIA 
lawsuit is properly brought against federal agencies, the Court will 
substitute the DOJ as the real party in interest . . . .”). 
 
Case: 3:15-cv-00021-CVG-RM   Document #: 5   Filed: 06/02/17   Page 1 of 4
Reedom v. Social Security Administration, et al. 
Civil No. 2015-21 
Order 
Page 2 
 
On March 17, 2015, Reedom filed a complaint asserting 
several claims under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). 
The same day, Reedom moved for leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis. 
Reedom alleges that he “request[ed] FOIA information” from 
the Social Security Administration, the United States Department 
of Agriculture, and the Internal Revenue Service. Reedom alleges 
that each of those agencies denied or partially denied his 
requests. Other than to assert that the requested “records are 
sufficient and necessary to [Reedom’s] retirement and survival,” 
the complaint is devoid of any factual content with respect to 
the requested records or their subject matter. The complaint 
does not indicate when Reedom made his alleged requests. 
On October 10, 2015, the Magistrate granted Reedom leave to 
proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate also issued a Report 
and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss Reedom’s 
complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Reedom 
filed no objections to the Magistrate’s Report and 
Recommendation. 
 
Litigants may make “specific written objections” to a 
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “[w]ithin 14 days 
after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” 
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 
Case: 3:15-cv-00021-CVG-RM   Document #: 5   Filed: 06/02/17   Page 2 of 4
Reedom v. Social Security Administration, et al. 
Civil No. 2015-21 
Order 
Page 3 
 
(“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party 
may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings 
and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”).  
 
When a party makes a timely objection, the district court 
“make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report 
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 
objection is made.” Id. When no objection to a magistrate’s 
report and recommendation is made the district court reviews the 
report and recommendation for plain error. See Henderson v. 
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (“While . . . [28 
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] may not require, in the absence of 
objections, the district court to review the magistrate’s report 
before accepting it, we believe that the better practice is for 
the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive 
legal issues raised by the report.”); see also Tice v. Wilson, 
425 F. Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) aff'd, 276 Fed. App'x 
125 (3d Cir. 2008)(explaining that, by failing to object to a 
portion of a report and recommendation, the litigant “waived its 
right to have this Court conduct a de novo review,” and that in 
those circumstances, “the scope of [the court’s] review is far 
more limited and is conducted under the far more deferential 
standard of ‘plain error’ ”). 
Case: 3:15-cv-00021-CVG-RM   Document #: 5   Filed: 06/02/17   Page 3 of 4
Reedom v. Social Security Administration, et al. 
Civil No. 2015-21 
Order 
Page 4 
 
 
Having reviewed the record and the Report and 
Recommendation, the Court finds no error.  
The premises considered, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation docketed at ECF 
Number 3 is ADOPTED; it is further 
ORDERED that the claims against the United States 
Department of Agriculture are DISMISSED; it is further 
ORDERED that the claims against the United States 
Department of Treasury are DISMISSED; it is further 
ORDERED that the claims against the Social Security 
Administration are DISMISSED; it is further 
ORDERED that, no later than June 23, 2017, Reedom shall, to 
the extent he wishes to do so, amend his complaint to remedy the 
defects identified in the Magistrate’s October 10, 2015, Report 
and Recommendation; and it is further 
ORDERED that, if Reedom fails to file an amended complaint 
as required by this order, this action may be dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
 
 
 
 
Case: 3:15-cv-00021-CVG-RM   Document #: 5   Filed: 06/02/17   Page 4 of 4