Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending dismissal, without prejudice, of this action, and closure of the case. Matter referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill with objections to findings due within thirty days of service of this order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 7/8/2015. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CARRIE LEE,

9
10
11

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-433- LJO-SMS
Plaintiff,

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

12

Defendant.

13
14
15

On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff Carrie Lee, proceeding in pro se, filed her social security

16

complaint together with a motion and application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Docs. 1,

17

2. On March 28, 2014, the Court denied the motion to proceed IFP because Plaintiff failed to

18

complete, sign, and submit the second page of the motion, and the Court was unable to conclude

19

that she satisfied the IFP requirements. Doc. 3. In the order denying the motion, Plaintiff was

20

given thirty days to submit a completed application or pay the filing fee. She was advised that

21

failure to do so would result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. As of July 1,

22

2015, Plaintiff has not filed a completed IFP application or paid the filing fee.

23
24
25

Hence, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the action is DISMISSED without prejudice,
and the case closed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court

26

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

27

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

28

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written

1

objections with the Court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

2

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review

3

the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that

4

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

5

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

9

July 8, 2015

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2