Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM and ORDER CLIFFORD J. PROUD , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Roger E. Keime, acting pro se, filed this action seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) of the final agency decision denying him social security disability benefits. Since late March 2016, mail sent to plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable. See, Docs. 16, 20. On April 28, 2016, the Court entered a Notice of Impending Dismissal. That order contained the following warning: Plaintiff is cautioned th
Summary: MEMORANDUM and ORDER CLIFFORD J. PROUD , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Roger E. Keime, acting pro se, filed this action seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) of the final agency decision denying him social security disability benefits. Since late March 2016, mail sent to plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable. See, Docs. 16, 20. On April 28, 2016, the Court entered a Notice of Impending Dismissal. That order contained the following warning: Plaintiff is cautioned tha..
More
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
CLIFFORD J. PROUD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Roger E. Keime, acting pro se, filed this action seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final agency decision denying him social security disability benefits.
Since late March 2016, mail sent to plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable. See, Docs. 16, 20. On April 28, 2016, the Court entered a Notice of Impending Dismissal. That order contained the following warning:
Plaintiff is cautioned that this case will be dismissed if he does not file a notice of change of address by May 5, 2016.
Doc. 17, emphasis in original.
Plaintiff has failed to file a change of address as ordered. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f) provides that the Court may sanction a party to failing to obey a pretrial order. Rule 16(f) incorporates the sanctions provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b). Thus, it is clear that the Court has the authority to impose sanctions, including dismissal, for failure to keep the Court informed of his address.
This Court has given plaintiff the required "warning shot," i.e., warning of the consequences of failing to follow its orders. See, Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752, 755 (7th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff failed to obey the Court's orders and has failed to diligently prosecute his case. Therefore, this cause of action will be dismissed.2
This cause of action is ordered DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
