Filed: Feb. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge. On March 29, 2011, Plaintiff, appearing through counsel, filed this action appealing his denial of Social Security benefits. Defendant filed an answer and copy of the administrative record on December 6, 2011. ECF Nos. 13, 14. Plaintiff's brief in support of his appeal was due by January 9, 2011. See Local Rule 83.VII.04 (D.S.C.); see also ECF No. 13. Plaintiff did not file a brief. By order of this court filed January 23, 2012, Plaintiff was given
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge. On March 29, 2011, Plaintiff, appearing through counsel, filed this action appealing his denial of Social Security benefits. Defendant filed an answer and copy of the administrative record on December 6, 2011. ECF Nos. 13, 14. Plaintiff's brief in support of his appeal was due by January 9, 2011. See Local Rule 83.VII.04 (D.S.C.); see also ECF No. 13. Plaintiff did not file a brief. By order of this court filed January 23, 2012, Plaintiff was given ..
More
ORDER
KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
On March 29, 2011, Plaintiff, appearing through counsel, filed this action appealing his denial of Social Security benefits. Defendant filed an answer and copy of the administrative record on December 6, 2011. ECF Nos. 13, 14. Plaintiff's brief in support of his appeal was due by January 9, 2011. See Local Rule 83.VII.04 (D.S.C.); see also ECF No. 13. Plaintiff did not file a brief.
By order of this court filed January 23, 2012, Plaintiff was given until February 6, 2012, to file his brief if he wished to continue his appeal. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to comply with this deadline, that the undersigned may recommend that this matter be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Based on the foregoing, it appears the plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Larry W. Propes, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
