Bullock v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation (re 18 ) and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 4/30/2015. (D,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SAMUEL E. BULLOCK, Pro Se,
Plaintiff
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:14 CV 1634

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

ORDER

The Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denied Plaintiff Samuel E.
Bullock’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits under 42
U.S.C. §§ 416(I), 423 et seq. Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. The
court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Greg White for preparation of a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). On October 27, 2014, the Commissioner filed an Answer and
Transcript (ECF Nos. 12, 13).

Subsequently, Plaintiff’s Brief on the Merits was due by

December 26, 2014. On January 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause
(ECF No. 15), ordering Plaintiff to file his Brief on the Merits by February 9, 2015, and to show
cause by that same date as to why his case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. On
February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 16), requesting an
additional thirty days to “correct [his] mistakes,” which the Magistrate Judge granted. Plaintiff did
not file a Brief on the Merits, but filed an “Answer” (ECF No. 17) on March 10, 2015. Magistrate
Judge White filed his R&R (ECF No. 18) on April 15, 2015, recommending that the court dismiss
the action for want of prosecution or, in the alternative, affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s “Answer” could not reasonably be

construed as a Brief on the Merits because it contained no legal argument and simply stated that the
ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge concluded that,
even liberally construing Plaintiff’s pleadings, Plaintiff has not presented any legal argument as to
why the ALJ’s decision should be vacated despite having been given several opportunities to make
such argument. Consequently, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint for want of prosecution. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court
affirm the Commissioner’s decision because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the ALJ’s decision
was not supported by substantial evidence or that the ALJ applied incorrect legal standards.
As of the date of this Order, no objections had been filed to the R&R, thereby waiving the
right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th
Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
The court finds, after careful de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and all other
relevant documents in the record, that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are fully supported by the
record and controlling case law. Accordingly, the court adopts as its own the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint for want of
prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

April 30, 2015

-2-