Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ferrier v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:15-cv-633. (2016)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20160513846 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 2016
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KAREN L. LITKOVITZ , Magistrate Judge . On April 1, 2016, the Court ordered plaintiff to either file a Statement of Errors, or show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Magistrate Judges' General Order Concerning Social Security Appeals. (Doc. 12). To date, plaintiff has yet to respond to the Court's Order or file a Statement of Errors. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On April 1, 2016, the Court ordered plaintiff to either file a Statement of Errors, or show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Magistrate Judges' General Order Concerning Social Security Appeals. (Doc. 12).

To date, plaintiff has yet to respond to the Court's Order or file a Statement of Errors. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution.

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).

NOTICE REGARDING THE FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO THIS R&R

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations within TEN DAYS after being served with this Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this period is automatically extended to thirteen days (excluding intervening Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) because this R&R is being served by mail. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the R&R is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections within TEN DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

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