Dorsey v. Commissioner Social Security

Filing 19

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute - Objections due within fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 2/19/2015. (agm1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SHARON MARIE DORSEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1604
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff’s
applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income.

The administrative record was filed on November 20,

2014, ECF 13, and plaintiff’s statement of errors was due February 18,
2015. Order, ECF 15; Order, ECF 18. Plaintiff’s counsel moved for
leave to withdraw, representing that plaintiff no longer communicated
with him.

Motion to Withdraw, ECF 16.

Although plaintiff was granted

an opportunity to oppose that motion, Order, ECF 17, plaintiff did not
object to her counsel’s withdrawal. The motion for leave to withdraw
was therefore granted. Order, ECF 18. Plaintiff was reminded that her
statement of errors was due by February 18, 2015 and that her failure
to file the statement of errors would be construed as an abandonment
of the litigation and would likely result in the dismissal of the
case. Id. Plaintiff has not filed the required statement of errors. It

1

appears that plaintiff has abandoned the prosecution of this case.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for
failure to prosecute.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28

Response to objections

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to
appeal the judgment of the District Court.

See, e.g., Pfahler v.

Nat’l Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that
“failure

to

constituted

object
a

waiver

to

the

of

[the

magistrate
defendant’s]

judge’s

recommendations

ability

to

appeal

the

district court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976,
984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant waived appeal of district
court’s

denial

magistrate

of

judge’s

pretrial
report

motion
and

by

failing

recommendation).

to

timely
Even

object

when

to

timely

objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in those
objections is waived.

Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir.

2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which

fails

to

specify

the

issues

of

contention,

does

not

suffice

preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
February 19, 2015

3

to