Singleton v. Berryhill
ORDER DISMISSING this action without prejudice, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/8/18. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-105-WKW
On December 19, 2017, the court construed Plaintiff Chelsea Singleton’s
objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as a motion for an
extension of time. (Doc. # 17, at 4.) The court granted that motion, giving Ms.
Singleton until February 1, 2018, to file her brief in support of her complaint. That
deadline has now come and gone.
Ms. Singleton’s Amended Complaint was filed nearly a year ago, on
February 28, 2017. (Doc. # 4.) Her response brief was then due forty days after
Defendant filed her Answer—so by July 10, 2017. (Doc. # 5, at 2.) That deadline
came and went. Then the Magistrate Judge entered an order on October 24, 2017,
giving Ms. Singleton until November 13, 2017, to file a response showing why her
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. # 12.) Ms.
Singleton responded by asking for more time. (Doc. # 13, at 1.) That was also her
response when the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing her case for failure
to prosecute, and it was that request this court granted in December.
Suffice it to say, the court has not held Ms. Singleton to a “strict
accountability of compliance with the rules of procedure” due to her pro se status.
Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1561 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Hughes v. Rowe,
449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980)). However, all litigants, pro se or not, must comply with
court orders, and Ms. Singleton has failed to prosecute this matter and to abide by
the orders of the court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice. A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 8th day of February, 2018.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?