MELTON v. BERRYHILL
Filing
13
ORDER that the Plaintiff shall have through September 1, 2017 to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 11 . Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/16/2017 (dist made)(CBU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CATINA L. MELTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:17-cv-01471-TWP-MJD
ORDER
Plaintiff pro se, filed her Complaint for Review for of Final Social Security Decision on
May 5, 2017. Thereafter, on July 19, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11).
Defendants assert that dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff’s Complaint was not timely filed
and it is barred by the 60-day limitation specified in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). To date, Plaintiff has
failed to respond to the Motion. Plaintiff shall have through September 1, 2017 to respond to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11).
In conjunction with the foregoing, the plaintiff should be aware that a failure to timely
respond to defendant's arguments alone warrants dismissal of the lawsuit. See Thomas v. Urban
P'ship Bank, 2013 WL 1788522, at *13 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 26, 2013) (collecting cases). “When
presented with a motion to dismiss, the nonmoving party must proffer some legal basis to support
his cause of action.” County of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 818 (7th Cir. 2006).
For that reason, if a plaintiff does not respond, and the court is “given plausible reasons for
dismissing a complaint, [it is] not going to do the plaintiff's research and try to discover whether
there might be something to say against the defendants' reasoning.” Kirksey v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 1039, 1042 (7th Cir. 1999).
Date:
8/16/2017
Distribution:
CATINA L. MELTON
11165 US Highway 52
Lot 20
Brookville, IN 47012
Kathryn E. Olivier
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
kathryn.olivier@usdoj.gov
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?