Howell v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:19-cv-518. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190801d39
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM , District Judge . This matter is before the court for consideration of the July 12, 2019, report and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b). The magistrate judge recommended that this case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for want of prosecution. The magistrate judge noted that plaintiff was ordered to file his Statement of Errors within forty-five days of the filing of the admini
Summary: ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM , District Judge . This matter is before the court for consideration of the July 12, 2019, report and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b). The magistrate judge recommended that this case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for want of prosecution. The magistrate judge noted that plaintiff was ordered to file his Statement of Errors within forty-five days of the filing of the adminis..
More
ORDER
JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge.
This matter is before the court for consideration of the July 12, 2019, report and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). The magistrate judge recommended that this case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for want of prosecution. The magistrate judge noted that plaintiff was ordered to file his Statement of Errors within forty-five days of the filing of the administrative record on April 29, 2019, but he did not do so. Plaintiff also failed to respond to the court's order of June 21, 2019, directing him to show cause on or before July 5, 2019, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Doc. 9.
The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties that failure to object to the report and recommendation within fourteen days of the report would "result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation." Doc. 10, p. 3. The time for filing such objections has expired, and no objections have been filed.
The court hereby adopts and affirms the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 10). This action is hereby dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for want of prosecution.
Source: Leagle
