JOHN H. RICH, III, Magistrate Judge.
On December 2, 2015, the pro se plaintiff in this Social Security appeal filed a letter to me that the court has construed as a motion to reconsider my November 28, 2015, recommended dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute. See [Motion To Reconsider] ("Motion") (ECF No. 18); Recommended Dismissal (ECF No. 16). For the reasons that follow, and without objection from the defendant commissioner, see Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ("Response") (ECF No. 20), the Motion is granted.
The plaintiff, who has at all times been acting pro se in this matter, initiated this action on April 30, 2015, and, until November 30, 2015, had filed nothing further. In my Recommended Dismissal, I noted that the court had issued procedural orders directing the plaintiff to file a Statement of Errors on two occasions, although evidently only the second order was mailed to the plaintiff, and it did not specify a precise filing deadline. See Recommended Dismissal at 1. I further noted that, (i) on September 17, 2015, the court issued an order directing the plaintiff to show good cause why this action should not be dismissed, (ii) the court mailed a copy of that order to the plaintiff, and (iii) the envelope containing the order was thereafter returned, with a notation from the United States Postal Service that the plaintiff had moved without leaving a forwarding address. See id. at 2. I recommended dismissal of this case without prejudice based on the plaintiff's failure to respond to the second order directing him to file a statement of errors or to provide the court with a forwarding address, preventing further communications. See id. at 2-3.
Coincidentally, unaware of the pendency of the Recommended Dismissal, the plaintiff went to the U.S. District Courthouse in Bangor on November 30, 2015, to provide the court his updated contact information, see ECF No. 17, and learned of the Recommended Dismissal, a copy of which he was provided. On December 2, 2015, he filed this Motion, stating that he had been living with his ill mother in Georgia since May 2015 and that he "did an exchange of address" before he departed for Georgia but never received any response from the court. See Motion.
The commissioner does not oppose the Motion in light of the plaintiff's prompt response to the Recommended Dismissal, his recent filing of a change of address, and his allegation that he had earlier attempted to provide notice of a change of address. See Response at 2. She correctly notes that the court's primary concern, which was the plaintiff's "communications cutoff," has been remedied. Id. She requests that the court reset briefing deadlines. See id.
In consideration of the plaintiff's pro se status, his move to Georgia to care for his ill mother, his apparent unsuccessful attempt to provide the court with updated contact information, his provision on November 30, 2015, of his new address, his prompt filing of the Motion, and the lack of any objection, the Motion is
In accordance with Local Rule 16.3, the plaintiff shall file an itemized statement of specific errors
The commissioner shall file an opposition to the plaintiff's itemized statement of specific errors no later than thirty (30) days after the plaintiff files his statement of errors. Any motions to dismiss, remand, or to continue shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the plaintiff files his statement of errors.
Unless dismissed, continued, or remanded, this case shall be set for oral argument during the week of March 14, 2016. Depending on the number of cases to be heard, the court may set oral argument on different days and in Bangor as well as Portland.
The Clerk of the Court is