Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge. The pro se Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g). The Commissioner filed an Answer along with a transcript of record on December 10, 2014. (Court Docket Nos. 20 & 21). The Local Rules of this District state that, after the filing of an Answer, a plaintiff has thirty (30) days in which to file a written brief. Local Civil Rule 83.VII.04 DSC. Therefore, Plaintiff's brie
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge. The pro se Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g). The Commissioner filed an Answer along with a transcript of record on December 10, 2014. (Court Docket Nos. 20 & 21). The Local Rules of this District state that, after the filing of an Answer, a plaintiff has thirty (30) days in which to file a written brief. Local Civil Rule 83.VII.04 DSC. Therefore, Plaintiff's brief..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge.
The pro se Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g). The Commissioner filed an Answer along with a transcript of record on December 10, 2014. (Court Docket Nos. 20 & 21). The Local Rules of this District state that, after the filing of an Answer, a plaintiff has thirty (30) days in which to file a written brief. Local Civil Rule 83.VII.04 DSC. Therefore, Plaintiff's brief was due on or before January 12, 2015. However, the pro se Plaintiff failed to file a brief or present any argument for why the decision by the Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence.
In an Order filed January 13, 2015, Plaintiff was advised that it appeared he did not wish to continue to prosecute this action, and was given seven (7) days from the date of that Order in which to file a brief. Plaintiff was further specifically warned, in bold type, that his failure to do so may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
However, notwithstanding the extension granted and the specific warning and instructions as set forth in the Court's Order, the Plaintiff has failed to respond, or to contact the Court in any way. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. V. Lopez, 669 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1982).1 Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Davis, 588 F.2d at 70; Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
The Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his last known address. If the Plaintiff notifies the Court within the time set forth for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with this case and provides a Plaintiff's brief, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the District Judge for disposition. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [Magistrate Judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss suit when plaintiff did not comply despite warning].2
