Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 8/12/2019. (Mahoney, Brenna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
•X

JENNIFER BROWN,
Plaintiff

DECISION & ORDER

v.

17-CV-5486(WFK)
COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
-X

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ II, United States District Judge:

Jennifer Brown ("Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, filed this social security action on

September 14, 2017. See CompL, ECF No. 1. On September 25, 2017, this Court issued an
Order requiring the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") to file its answer to the
complaint on or before December 15, 2017 and to move for judgment on the pleadings on or
before February 16, 2018. See ECF No. 4. On February 15, 2018, Defendant—with Plaintiffs

consent—requested an extension of time to serve its motion. See ECF No. 10. On February 16,
2018, the Court so ordered the parties' requested amended motion schedule, which provided
Plaintiffwould respond to Defendant's motion on or before April 24, 2018. Id; see also Feb. 16,
2018 ECF Order. Pursuant to this Court's Order, Defendant filed its dispositive motion for

judgmenton the pleadings on May 8, 2018. See Def.'s Mot. for J. on the Pleadings, ECF No. 12.
Plaintiff, contraveningthis Court's Order, never replied to Defendant's motion.
On May 17, 2019, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file her response or
otherwise show cause as to her failure to respond by June 21, 2019. See ECF No. 16. This Court

further explained that Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court's Order would result in
dismissal of her case. Id.

Rule 41(b) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure provide, in relevant part, "[fjor failure
ofthe plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with ... any order of the court, a defendant may move
for dismissal of an action or any claim against the defendant." A district court has the inherent

power to dismiss a case with prejudice for lack ofprosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Link
v. Wabash R.R. Co., 360 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). By failing to respond to Defendant's motion,

thereby contravening the Court's February 16, 2018 Order, and further failing to comply with the
Court's May 17, 2019 Order directing her to file her response, Plaintiff has failed to pursue her
claim. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiffs noncompliance warrants dismissal. Such
dismissal is without prejudice given Plaintiff s pro se status.

Forthe foregoing reasons, the above-captioned action is hereby DISMISSED for failure
to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

HON. WILLIAM F. KMNTZ, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 12,2019
Brooklyn, New York