Campbell v. Berryhill

Filing 16

ORDER directing the plaintiff that within 14 days of the date of this order is served, to either pay his filing fee or otherwise show cause why this case should not be dismissed on inactivity and, thus, abandonment grounds. Failure to respond to this Order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 2/2/18. (jrb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
GERALD CARMICHEAL
CAMPBELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

FILED
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court

By James Burrell at 10:30 am, Feb 02, 2018

CV417-094

)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Plaintiff filed his Complaint seeking review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security and motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) in May 2017. Docs. 1 & 2. The Court, after screening,
granted IFP and permitted his Amended Complaint to be served by the
United States Marshal.

Plaintiff was also served with this Court’s

General Order in Social Security Appeals, which sets forth the briefing
schedule and requirements to which all Social Security appeal plaintiffs
(whether pro se or represented by counsel) must adhere. Doc. 9. That
Order explains that within 30 days of lodging of the Administrative
Record and filing of defendant’s answer to the complaint, plaintiff must
file his opening brief setting forth his entitlement to relief. The Record

was lodged and answer filed in October 2017, yet plaintiff has not filed
his opening brief or requested more time to do so. It is, in short, unclear
whether he intends to prosecute his case.
Within 14 days of the date this Order is served, plaintiff shall
either: (1) pay his filing fee, or (2) otherwise show cause why this case
should not be dismissed on inactivity and, thus, abandonment grounds.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(c).; Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to
dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Coop, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457,
1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Floyd v. United States, CV491-277 (S.D. Ga. June
10, 1992).

Failure to respond to this Order will result in a

recommendation of dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of February, 2018.

2