Smith v. Social Security Administration et al
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending 2 Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due no later than 14 days from the date of this recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 1/9/2014. (srw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner, Social Security
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Susan
Webber Wright. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation.
Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the
objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your
objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United
States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and
recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely
objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or
additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or
Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:
Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted)
was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form
of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial
evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional
evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:
Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
Mr. Kiara Smith filed his pro se Complaint (Doc. No. 1) against the Social Security
Administration and others on January 30, 2013. Upon his Motion (Doc. No. 5), Summons were
served by the Clerk (Doc. No. 6). Defendants Bartels and Turner were dismissed on July 18, 2013
(Doc. No. 8). The Social Security Administration filed its Answer (Doc. No. 14), and a Scheduling
Order was issued September 6, 2013 (Doc. No. 18).
Mr. Smith’s brief was due on or before October 18, 2013. He has not requested an extension
of time or otherwise communicated with the Court about filing his brief. Of particular note to pro
se plaintiffs is Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), which states:
Parties appearing pro se. It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to
promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in
his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the
action diligently. A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings
and state his/her address, zip code, and telephone number. If any communication
from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the
case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be
expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Loc. R. 5.5(c)(2).
It is recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to
respond to the Court’s October 18, 2013, Order. Mr. Smith may still file a brief with his Objections
to this Proposed Findings and Recommendations within the fourteen day time period allowed.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that:
Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
DATED this 9th day of January, 2014.
JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?