Shields v. Astrue

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM Dismissing without prejudice the action for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/8/2012. (nms)

I
I
I

f

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

!

l

MICHAEL R. SHIELDS,

I

Plaintiff,

v.

I

Civil Action No. 10-1048-RGA

f

MICHAEL ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM
Having reviewed plaintiff Michael R. Shields' "Medical Records & Brief Summary Should
Be Granted," the Court notes:
1. On December 3, 2010, pro se plaintiff Michael R. Shields ("Plaintiff') filed the present
action seeking judicial review of a decision of the Social Security Commissioner ("defendant")

I
f
I

denying Plaintiffs request for benefits. (D.I.2). The decision had become final for purposes of
this appeal on September 29,2010, when Plaintiffs request for review was denied. Defendant
filed an answer on July 18,2011. (D.I.9).
2. On July 25, 2011, the Court set a briefing schedule by which Plaintiff was to file a
summary judgment motion and briefing by September 8, 2011. (D.I.12). Plaintiff did not do so.
On October 5, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to comply with the
Court's July 25 scheduling order, and for his apparent failure to prosecute. (D.I.13). Plaintiffs
subsequent October 14 filing consisted of one paragraph of about 58 words, generally alleging
Plaintiffs health was "getting worse" and related medical issues that were consistent with that

I

summary description. (D.I.14). The Court interpreted that submission as an explanation for why
the Plaintiff had not to date submitted a brief, and ordered Plaintiff to file a brief containing an
argument as to why summary judgment should be granted in his favor by February 6, 2012. (D.I.

I
I

15).

3. On February 6, Plaintiff filed one paragraph generally requesting help due to his health,
accompanied by sealed medical records and an application for public assistance dated January
2012. (D.I. 16, 17). 1 These submissions do not present any argument as to why summary
judgment on the September 2010 denial of benefits should be granted in his favor.
4. The Court has reviewed the ALI's decision, without the benefit of any assistance from the
Plaintiff. The ALJ generally credited the Plaintiffs treating physicians, and appears to have
adequately explained his decision, including his decision not to credit the claimant's
cardiologist's opinion, stated on a one-page "check the box" form, that the Plaintiff could not
work. Tr. 22.

In a nutshell, the Plaintiffs two main physical complaints appear to have been

coronary artery disease status post-stenting and seizure disorder. The Plaintiff reported that he
walked an hour a day and had the capacity to lift up to 20 pounds. After the time when he was
reporting that he was disabled, he injured his leg playing basketball. Tr. 574. Based on the
Court's review of the record, it appears that the Plaintiff genuinely had medical impairments, but
the record also demonstrates substantial evidence that he could have performed light sedentary
work, and that such work was available. Therefore, the Court's opinion, unaided by any useful

l
l

1

Plaintiffs current medical status is irrelevant to the issue of whether there was
substantial evidence to support the ALJ' s decision.
2

j

r
!

I
I

f

I
f

t

input from the Plaintiff, 2 is that the Administrative Law Judge's denial of benefits was based on
substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C.

p 405(g).

5. The Court will dismiss this action for failure to prosecute, without prejudice. See

McCloud v. Massanari, 13 Fed. Appx. 547, 2001 WL 710882 (9 1h Cir. 2001). A separate order
will be entered.

2

Before the ALJ, the Plaintiff had representation from a lawyer who appears to specialize
in social security disability work.

3