HENDERSON v. ASTRUE, 1:11-1395-TMC-SVH. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20120117705
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff brought this matter appealing a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security on June 8, 2011. Defendant filed an answer and the administrative record of the underlying social security proceedings on October 6, 2011. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83VII.04 (D.S.C.), Plaintiff's brief was originally due on November 10, 2011. Plaintiff moved for and was granted an extension until December 9, 2011 to file her brief. Plaintiff failed to file a bri
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff brought this matter appealing a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security on June 8, 2011. Defendant filed an answer and the administrative record of the underlying social security proceedings on October 6, 2011. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83VII.04 (D.S.C.), Plaintiff's brief was originally due on November 10, 2011. Plaintiff moved for and was granted an extension until December 9, 2011 to file her brief. Plaintiff failed to file a brie..
More
ORDER
SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff brought this matter appealing a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security on June 8, 2011. Defendant filed an answer and the administrative record of the underlying social security proceedings on October 6, 2011. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83VII.04 (D.S.C.), Plaintiff's brief was originally due on November 10, 2011. Plaintiff moved for and was granted an extension until December 9, 2011 to file her brief. Plaintiff failed to file a brief by December 9, 2011. The court inquired of Plaintiff's counsel whether a brief or another extension would be forthcoming and received no response.
Plaintiff has not yet filed a brief in this matter. As such, it appears to the court that Plaintiff wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff and her counsel are directed to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a brief by January 31, 2012. Plaintiff and her counsel are further advised that if she fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiff's counsel's workload does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
