Jiles v. Social Security Administration

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM RULING re 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 3 Complaint filed by Will Jiles. The Court ADOPTS the factual statements contained in the Report and Recommendation and the recommendation that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice under Rule 41(b), but based on the analysis in the ruling the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Magistrate Judge's alternative recommendation that the matter be dismissed on the merits. As stated in this Memorandum Ruling, the Court DISMISSES his complaint with prejudice under Rule 41(b) and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 41(b). Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 3/11/10. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

cur

j.3~ r~rr
~,1.

~ \

"

"

1

~

U\Ti'FI) STATES IMSTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF IA)UISIANA MONROE DIVISION

WILL JILES VERSUS MI(I.'HAEL J. ASTRUE, (OMMIS'~IOM'LSOCI tI SF( I RI I ~ ADMINISTRATION

CIVIL ACTION NO. O9~$392 JIJI)CE ROBERT 0+ JAMES MAC. JUDGE KAREN U. HAVES

MEMORANDUM RULING Pending beibre the Court is the Report and Reconunenda.tion of Mag~stra.te udge Hayes J [Doe. No. I 6~, ecommending that the Court ds.miss Plaiatitf's complaint with pre~ud~ce der r un rederal Rule of Chit Procedure 41(b). or, in the alternative, on the merits. The Court ADOPTS the ihetuaistaternents contained in tue Report and Reeorni endation and the recommendation thai the Court dismiss this ease with prejudice under Rule 41(b), hut based on the (blowing analysis, The (I~ourt ECLINES TO ADOPT' the Magistrate Judge's alternative recommendation D that the matter be dismissed on the merits. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro xc, appeals a dee~sion y an Actminjstrat~ve aw Judge b L OALJ") denying him social security benettts. His brief Roe.. No. 1.41. hos ever, did not allege specthc errors in the ALPs decision, as required 1w the Court's May iS. 20(19 Scheduling Order [Doe. No. i3J. In a. July 9, 2009 Order iDoc. No. IS]. the Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff fifteen (1 5) days to remedy his delicient brief but he never did so. The Manistrate. Judge entered this Report and. Recommendation on Januar 26. 2010, six months later. during which time Plaintiff did nut contact the. Court. On February 5, 2010. l>laint.iff filed a Motion for Lxtens·~onof Time [Doe. No. 17] to tile objeetkms to the.. Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff stated tha.t he was incarcerated on May

23,2009. Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Tate was granted and his deadlIne was extended to February 26,2010 (Doe. No. 18]. To date, however, Plaintiffhas not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation or any other pleadings. Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure Rule 41(b) permits the dIsmIssal of an action for SiLure tocomply withacourtorder. &eFEDJtCI'L P~ 1(b). ~ 4 "an extreme sanction that dqaives the litigant ofthe oicommiiy to pursue his claIm? Berry v.
CIGNA/MI-CiGNA, 915 F.2d 1188,1190(5th Cii'. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). The

United States Court ofAppeals fbi' the Fifth Circuit has stated that a dismissal wIth prejudice is appropriate only when "(I) them is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plamntifZ.
. .

(2) the.. court has expressly detenulned that lesser sanctions would not prompt

diligent prosecutions or [(3)~ e record shows that the district court employed lesser sanctions th that proved to be MIl&'
it!.

Plaintiffs six-month silence foilcming the Magistiate's July 9, 2009 Orderis a "significant period of total inactivitf that, together with his failure to file objections to the Report and Recommendation after being grantedadditional time, indicates a clear record ofdelay by Plaintift Morris r. Ocean &wtems, 130 F.2d 248,2520th Cis~l984).Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to file a proper briefin this case, or to explain why he has not For this reaa the Court DISt&SSES his complaint with prejudice under Rule 41(b). For these reasons, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Court orders wader FediS Rule ofCivil Procedure 41(b). MONROE, LOUISIANA, tiüs

I L day ofMarch, 2010.
ROBERTO. JAMES UNITED STATES 1)

JUDGE