Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 62

ORDER granting 61 Plaintiff's motion as stated in body of order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 6/5/2020. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
CARLOS H. SOTO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:17-cv-241-Oc-PRL

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

ORDER
Based on the recent status reports filed by the Commissioner (Docs. 59, 60), the underlying
administrative proceedings have been completed. However, the Social Security Administration
cannot complete the certified administrative transcript of the record until its employees (who have
been teleworking due to COVID-19) return to the office. Once the certified administrative record
is complete and filed, the Court will reopen the case and issue a briefing schedule.
In his recent filing (Doc. 61), Plaintiff asks that the Commissioner be required to reply to
his filing at Doc. 51—instead of the original complaint—since there is now a different final
decision at issue. When the Court issues its scheduling order, it will set a deadline by which
Plaintiff has to file a memorandum in support of his position. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to rely
on his filing at Doc. 51 – instead of filing a separate memorandum—he may advise the Court
before his deadline to file his memorandum.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on June 5, 2020.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-