Argabright v. Commissioner of Social Security
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS THEEFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). re 2 Complaint filed by Sheila Argabright Objections to R&R due by 5/15/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 5/1/2017. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Commissioner Of The Social Security
: Case No. 3:16-cv-00494
: District Judge Thomas M. Rose
: Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS1
On December 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint in this Court seeking
judicial review from a final decision issued by the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration. Plaintiff, however, did not file a Statement of Errors in response to
Defendant=s Answer as required by the Magistrate Judges= Seventh Amended General
Order No. 11. Consequently, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to Show Cause—not later than
April 28, 2017—why her Complaint should not be dismissed due to her failure to
prosecute and due to her failure to file a Statement of Errors as required by the Magistrate
Judges= Amended General Order No. 11. (Doc. #8). The Court also provided Plaintiff
with an alternative opportunity to file a Statement of Errors by April 28, 2017. Id.
Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendations.
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court=s Order to Show Cause and has not filed a
Statement of Errors.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in a clear pattern of delay by not filing a
Statement of Errors and by not complying with the Order to Show Cause. The main
effect of Plaintiff=s failure to comply with the Court=s Order to Show cause is that the
record is void of an explanation by Plaintiff for her failure to file a Statement of Errors.
Absent such an explanation, and in light of the above circumstances, Plaintiff=s clear
pattern of delay warrants dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for
failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254, 1256 (6th
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
Plaintiff=s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
May 1, 2017
s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after
being served with this Report and Recommendations. Such objections shall specify the
portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part
upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly
arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree
upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge
otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections within
FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on
appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947,
949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
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?