Owenby v. Colvin
Filing
22
ORDER denying Pltf's 13 MOTION to Accept Pleadings and 14 Motion for Summary Judgment . Commissioner shall have up to and including 7/5/2017 to file supplemental brief addressing impact of Court's denial of Pltf& #039;s Motion to Accept Pleadings on how, or whether, this action may proceed. In lieu of supplemental brief, Commissioner may file an appropriate motion. Pltf shall have up to and including 7/19/2017 to file response and Commissioner shall have up to and including 7/26/2017 to file reply. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 6/20/17. (ejb) Modified text on 6/20/2017 (nvc).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00243-RLV
STEWART WAYNE OWENBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff Stewart Wayne Owenby’s
Motion to Accept Pleadings. (Doc. 13). In his Motion to Accept Pleadings, Plaintiff asks this
Court to accept his Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) and supporting Memorandum (Doc.
15) even though both documents were untimely filed. (Doc. 13; see also Doc. 12). The Court has
reviewed the relevant documents, including the format of Plaintiff’s Memorandum in support of
his Motion for Summary Judgment.
Although Plaintiff’s Memorandum cites to this Court’s December 16, 2013 Social Security
Briefing Order, (Case No. 3:13-mc-198-FDW; Doc. 1), the Memorandum clearly does not comply
with this Court’s Social Security Briefing Order. Specifically, Plaintiff’s opening “Summary of
the Case” section spans nine pages, (Doc. 15 at 1-9), whereas this Court’s Social Security Briefing
Order limits the “Summary of Case” section to “no more than two pages,” Social Security Briefing
Order, (Case No. 3:13-mc-198-FDW; Doc. 1 at 1). Of the ten items this Court’s Social Security
Briefing Order requires a plaintiff to “succinctly” identify in the first two pages of his or her
1
memorandum, see id. at 1-2,1 Plaintiff discusses only two of the items within in the first two full
pages of his Memorandum, (see Doc. 15 at 1-3 (identifying alleged onset date and identifying
some of the medical conditions causing his disability)). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s “Summary of the
Case” section does not touch upon four of the ten items required by this Court’s Social Security
Briefing Order. See id. at 1-9 (not identifying date of Plaintiff’s application for benefits, the type
of benefits Plaintiff sought, the date of last insurance, or the relief requested); see also Social
Security Briefing Order, (Case No. 3:13-mc-198-FDW; Doc. 1 at 2).
Finally, Plaintiff’s
“Summary of the Case” section provides only partial information on a fifth required item. (See
Doc. 15 at 4 (identifying Plaintiff’s age but not identifying Plaintiff’s level of education or work
history); see also Social Security Briefing Order, (Case No. 3:13-mc-198-FDW; Doc. 1 at 2).
Accordingly, based on the aforementioned deficiencies in Plaintiff’s supporting Memorandum
(Doc. 15) and because the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting Memorandum
were untimely filed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Accept Pleadings (Doc. 13) is DENIED. See Local
Civil Rule 5.2.1(A) (noting that Court will accept filings that comply with Local Rules); see also
Taylor v. Colvin, 2015 WL 12672686, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2015) (collecting cases and noting
that district court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of action, for party’s failure to comply
with court order or local rules); Farwell v. Story, 2010 WL 4963008, at *10 (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2010)
(holding that motion that does not comply with local rules must be denied and quoting
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010), for proposition that local rules “‘have the force
of law’”).
1
Although identifying ten items within two pages may sound onerous, the items are typically stated in bullet format
rather than narrative form. This is because the “Summary of Case” section is intended to give this Court a
dispassionate overview of the essential aspects of the case, including the plaintiff’s assignments of errors, rather than
provide the plaintiff an opportunity to advocate for his or her position.
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Commissioner shall have up to and including
July 5, 2017 to file a supplemental brief addressing the impact of this Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s
Motion to Accept Pleadings on how, or whether, this action may proceed. In lieu of a supplemental
brief, the Commissioner may file an appropriate motion. Plaintiff shall have up to and including
July 19, 2017 to file a response. The Commissioner shall have up to and including July 26, 2017
to file a reply.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 20, 2017
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?