ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED ON JANUARY 29, 2019

(Doc. No. 13)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS MOOT

(Doc. No. 14)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

SIXTY (60) DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CONSENT TO OR DECLINE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

(Doc. No. 7)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Bernard Liscano, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on March 29, 2018, seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his social security benefits. (Doc. No. 1.)

I. Order to Show Cause and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time

On April 25, 2018, this Court entered a scheduling order in this action. (Doc. No. 7.) 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 95 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 reveals that the administrative record was filed and served on September 6, 2018. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff's opening brief was therefore due no later than December 10, 2018. To date, Plaintiff has not filed his opening brief. As a result, on January 29, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's order and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 13.)

On February 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a sixty (60) day extension of time to respond to the Court's order to show cause. (Doc. No. 14.) In his motion, Plaintiff explains that he was not served with or notified that the administrative record had been filed.1 As the motion appears to explain why Plaintiff failed to timely file his opening brief, the order to show cause shall be discharged and Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause shall be denied as moot.

II. Failure to File Opening Brief

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed his opening brief. As noted above, Plaintiff's opening brief was due December 10, 2018, and accordingly is more than two months overdue. However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and given Plaintiff's representation in his motion for an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause to the effect that he was not aware that the administrative record had been served and filed (Doc. No. 14), the Court will allow Plaintiff an additional sixty (60) days from service of this order to file his opening brief.

III. Failure to Consent to or Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

On April 25, 2018, the Court issued an Order re Consent or Request for Reassignment requiring the parties to complete and return a Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form within ninety (90) days. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was likewise served with a copy of the order by mail on April 25, 2018. However, the record reflects that Plaintiff has not yet filed a valid form consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction or requesting reassignment to a District Judge despite appearing in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff shall notify the Court within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order whether he consents to or declines United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

The failure to respond to this order will result in the dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.