Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SUMMERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2:13-cv-1998-CMK. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150123a64 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, who is now proceeding in propria persona, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). This case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment, as the court has received written consent of all parities. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c). Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, plaintiff was required to prosecute
More

ORDER

CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, who is now proceeding in propria persona, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment, as the court has received written consent of all parities. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, plaintiff was 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, which were filed on February 19, 2014. Plaintiff's prior counsel requested and received additional time in which to file her motion for summary judgment. That date was extended again following the court's granting of counsel's motion to withdraw as plaintiff's attorney of record. Pursuant to that October 23, 2014, order, plaintiff was required to file her dispositive motion within 60 days. 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. More than 60 days have passed since that order was issued. A review of the docket shows that to date, plaintiff has not filed a dispositive motion, a request for voluntary remand, or an extension of time in which to do so.

Accordingly, plaintiff shall now be required to show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file a dispositive motion or otherwise prosecute this action. 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer