Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/5/14 ORDERING that the court has reissued the full Scheduling Order 13 . The parties shall proceed pursuant to the reissued scheduling order with the applicable deadlines beginning to run from the date of this order. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EUNICE DAVIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1908 DAD

v.

ORDER

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,

16

Defendant.

17
Plaintiff Eunice Davis is proceeding pro se in this action. On December 19, 2013, the

18
19

undersigned issued an order directing the Clerk of the Court to issue process and to serve upon

20

plaintiff the undersigned’s Scheduling Order for social security cases. (Dkt. No. 3.) That same

21

day the Clerk of the Court issued that scheduling order, (Dkt. No. 5), and the defendant filed an

22

answer and lodged a copy of the administrative record on March 24, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 11 & 12.)
However, it appears that inadvertently missing from the court’s scheduling order issued on

23
24

December 19, 2013, was the page that advised plaintiff as to how she could prosecute this action

25

and of the corresponding deadlines. Accordingly, the court has reissued the full Scheduling

26

Order. (Dkt. No. 13.) The parties shall proceed pursuant to the reissued scheduling order with

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

the applicable deadlines beginning to run from the date of this order.1

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 5, 2014

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

DAD:6
ddad1/orders.soc sec/davis1908.sched.ord.docx

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

1

Plaintiff shall either submit new evidence with a request for voluntary remand to the Office of
the General Counsel, as explained in the reissued scheduling order, or file a motion for summary
judgment and/or remand within 45 days of the date of this order.
2