NON-FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOHN K. LARKINS, III, Magistrate Judge.

This Social Security case is presently before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment. [Doc. 16.] According to Plaintiff, the government's answer was due on December 5, 2016, but the government filed its answer late on December 13. Thus, he argues, he is entitled to a default judgment. [Id.]

Defendant responds that her answer was not filed late, and in any event, a default judgment cannot be entered against the United States or its agencies unless the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the Court. [Doc. 17].

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(d) provides, "A default judgment may be entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court." In reviewing a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, a federal court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision and whether the decision is based upon proper legal standards. Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, even if the entry of default were appropriate here, Plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment because he must present evidence and argument based on the administrative record to show that he is entitled to relief from the Commissioner's adverse decision. See Owenby v. Gardner, 264 F.Supp. 424, 425 (N.D. Ga. 1967); see also Johnson v. Astrue, No. 8:07-CV-1614-T-30EAJ, 2008 WL 435180, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2008) (concluding that a Social Security plaintiff's complaint did not entitle him to relief from an adverse decision of the Commissioner for purposes of a motion for default judgment).

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment [Doc. 16] be DENIED.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.