REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter was filed pro se in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, and removed to this Court by Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1446. Following removal, the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss on November 23, 2011. See doc. 3. Plaintiff was to file a memorandum in opposition to the motion no later than December 19, 2011. None was filed. Accordingly, the Court ordered pro se Plaintiff to show cause, on or before January 5, 2012, why the motion "should not be granted and this case dismissed as requested in the Commissioner's motion." Doc. 4 at 1. To ensure that Plaintiff received notice of the Show Cause Order, the Court directed that the Order be mailed to Plaintiff via both regular and certified mail. Id.

I.

The January 5th deadline has passed, and pro se Plaintiff has not filed any document in response to the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. Nor has she filed anything in response to the Court's Show Cause Order. (The mail sent to her, by the Clerk, has been returned to the Court as "undeliverable.") Given Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Show Cause Order (as well as her failure to file a memorandum in opposition to the pending motion to dismiss), this case merits dismissal on account of Plaintiff's lack of prosecution. Accord Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109-10 (6th Cir. 1991).

II.

The case also merits dismissal on additional grounds. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes sua sponte that Plaintiff has failed to plead her claims with sufficient particularity, i.e., the Court cannot tell precisely what claims Plaintiff is trying to plead and the underlying facts giving rise to those claims. Plaintiff's pro se complaint reads in its entirety as follows:

Doc. 1-1 (State Court Complaint) at 4 (brackets added; capitalization deleted).

Construing this pleading in pro se Plaintiff's favor, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), it appears she complains (1) about the denial of Social Security disability benefits; (2) discrimination by the Social Security agency (presumably as a result of the decision not to award her benefits); and (3) that this denial, or some other unspecified conduct by the Agency, constitutes discrimination and/or a failure to provide her with a public accommodation. Plaintiff has failed to set out the material elements to maintain any discrimination or public accommodation claims. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims fail to satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and merit dismissal pursuant to Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1988).

III.

Plaintiff's Social Security claim also merits dismissal for the reasons stated by the Commissioner in its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). See doc. 3.

Absent an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to be sued, a court does not have jurisdiction over any claims made against the United States and its agencies. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). In 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Congress consented to being sued in Social Security cases exclusively in federal district courts. Accordingly, the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Social Security appeal.

Under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine,1because the state court (where the action was initially filed) did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim, this Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction upon a 28 U.S.C. § 1442 removal. Accord Graber v. Astrue, No. 2:07-cv-1254, 2009 WL 728564, at *1-4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2009); Ohio v. Smith, No. 2:06-cv-1022, 2007 WL 1114252, at *1-2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2007); Smith v. Cromer, 159 F.3d 875, 879 (4th Cir. 1998); Elko Cnty. Grand Jury v. Siminoe, 109 F.3d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1997).

Alternatively, even if Plaintiff had properly filed her complaint in this Court, her Social Security claim would still be subject to dismissal because, as is made clear in the motion to dismiss, she failed to present any evidence that she exhausted her administrative remedies.2 Section 405(g) only authorizes judicial review of the "final decision of the Commissioner." See 42 U.S.C. §405(g). Without a "final decision," the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiff's Social Security appeal. See Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 1991).

CONCLUSION

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED, and this case be TERMINATED upon the Court's docket.