Heckford v. Social Security Administration

Filing 14

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS re 6 Social Security Scheduling Order, 10 Order on Motion to Extend, AND 13 Order on Motion for Leave to File Order on Motion to Extend. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order of this court to file a brief with in 60 days after the administrative transcript was filed, despite having received two extensions of time to effect same. Accordingly, the court advises plaintiff that if by Friday, July 29, 2011, he still has not filed his brief, then the court inten ds to dismiss this matter with prejudice under Rule 41(b). Plaintiff's counsel shall provide his client with a copy of this notice forthwith, so plaintiff is personally aware that he shares responsibility for the potential dismissal of his case for failure to comply with court order(s). ( Appellant Brief due by 7/29/2011). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 7/18/11. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
NATHAN WEBSTER HECKFORD

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1451

VERSUS

*

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order of this court to file a brief within 60 days
after the administrative transcript was filed, despite having received two extensions of time to
effect same. See Nov. 9, 2011, Scheduling Order; March 15, 2011, Order; and May 23, 2011,
Order.1 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(b), this failure is grounds for
dismissal of this action. Such dismissals may be done sua sponte in accordance with the court’s
inherent power to control its own docket. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 82 S.Ct. 1386
(1962); Rogers v. Kroger, Co., 669 F.2d 317, 320-21 (5th Cir. 1982); Natural Gas Pipeline Co.
v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1407 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the court advises plaintiff that if by Friday July 29, 2011, he still has not
filed his brief, then the court intends to dismiss this matter with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide his client with a copy of this notice forthwith, so plaintiff is
personally aware that he shares responsibility for the potential dismissal of his case for failure to
comply with court order(s).
1

Following the latest extension of time, plaintiff’s brief was due by May 31, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 18th day of July
2011.