Abdullah v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:17-CV-2522-DMC. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190117f60
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, plaintiff is required to prosecute this action by either seeking voluntary remand or filing a dispositive motion within 45 days from the date of service of the administrative record by defendant. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply may result
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, plaintiff is required to prosecute this action by either seeking voluntary remand or filing a dispositive motion within 45 days from the date of service of the administrative record by defendant. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply may result ..
More
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, plaintiff is required to prosecute this action by either seeking voluntary remand or filing a dispositive motion within 45 days from the date of service of the administrative record by defendant. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. A review of the docket reflects that the answer and certified administrative record were served on November 6, 2018. To date, more than 45 days have elapsed and plaintiff has not complied.
Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to seek voluntary remand or file a dispositive motion. The filing of either notice that plaintiff has sought a voluntary remand or plaintiff's dispositive motion shall constitute a sufficient response. Plaintiff is again warned that failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the action for the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See id.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
