ORDER

ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr., District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed on December 1, 2014. (Doc. No. 7). As of March 21, 2016, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, had failed to respond to the Motion; therefore, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advised Plaintiff of her right to respond. (Doc. No. 9). The Order gave Plaintiff until March 31, 2016, to respond to Defendant's Motion, and it warned her that failure to respond would result in the Motion being granted. (Id.). On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to respond, (Doc. No. 10), and on April 4, 2016, the Court entered a Text-Only Order granting her motion and giving her until April 11, 2016, to file her response. Despite the Court's warning, and despite having been given additional time within which to respond, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and the time for doing so has long expired.

Furthermore, after reviewing Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, supporting memorandum, and exhibit, (Doc. Nos. 7, 8, 8-1), the Court finds that there is no final decision of the Commissioner from which Plaintiff may appeal; therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 7), is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.