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)

Download PDF
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

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?