McDaniel v. Social Security, Commissioner of
Filing
25
ORDER STRIKING and Setting Expedited Briefing schedule re: 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Terry L. McDaniel., ( Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/29/2016, Defendant Response and Motion due by 9/29/2016, Plaintiff Reply due by 10/10/2016), Motions terminated: 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Terry L. McDaniel --Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TERRY L. MCDANIEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:15-cv-12507
District Judge Paul D. Borman
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 21) and
SETTING EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Plaintiff, Terry L. McDaniel filed this complaint for judicial review of a
social security decision on July 15, 2015. (DE 1.) Pursuant to this Court’s January
5, 2016 scheduling order, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was originally
due on January 19, 2016. (DE 15.)1 Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time,
which this Court granted, providing Plaintiff until April 25, 2016 by which to file a
motion for summary judgment and/or a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
(DEs 17, 18.) On March 31, 2016, attorney Eva I. Guerra filed an appearance on
Plaintiff’s behalf. (DE 19.) Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to extend was granted
1
On February 11, 2016, the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute. (DE 16.)
by the Court, permitting Plaintiff until May 25, 2016 by which to file a motion for
summary judgment. (DE 20.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 29, 2016 motion for summary
judgment. (DE 21.)2 However, the accompanying brief does not comply with the
Undersigned’s social security practice guidelines. By way of background, “[a]
brief supporting a motion or response must, at the beginning, contain a concise
statement of the issues presented and, on the following page, the controlling or
most appropriate authority for the relief sought. The brief may contain a table of
contents, an index of authorities, and an index of exhibits attached to the brief.”
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(2) (“Form of Required Briefs.”). Relatedly, my social
security practice guidelines provide:
Within the parties’ briefs, the issues presented should be labeled as
section headings, and should match the items listed on the “Issues
Presented” page. Any issue addressed in the brief that is not both 1)
included in Issues Presented and 2) labeled as a section heading
within the brief, will not be considered by the Court.
See www.mied.uscourts.gov. Here, Plaintiff’s statement of the issues lists four (4)
questions, while her argument section is limited to one (1) assertion. (Compare
DE 21 at 7-8, 21-33.) The Court will address this matter as follows:
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (DE 21) shall be
STRICKEN from the Court’s docket as non-conforming.
2
Plaintiff’s same-day ex parte motion for leave to file Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment instanter (DE 22) has been granted by the Court.
2
No later than AUGUST 29, 2016, Plaintiff SHALL file a
motion for summary judgment that conforms with E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1 and my Practice Guidelines.
The deadlines imposed in response to the Commissioner’s
motions to extend (DE 23, DE 24) are further EXTENDED.
Defendant SHALL file its Response to Plaintiff's Motion
together with a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on or
before SEPTEMBER 29, 2016; and Plaintiff may file a reply
on or before OCTOBER 10, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 2016
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on August 23, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
3
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?