Powell v. Social Security Administration

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 8/13/2012); granting 14 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) (jcm, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JERALD POWELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 12-CV-48–CVE-FHM

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 16, 2012, the court entered an order permitting the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s
counsel and directing Plaintiff to either: 1)cause new counsel to enter an appearance; or
2) file a notice that Plaintiff is representing himself in this action. [Dkt. 13]. On July 25,
2012, Plaintiff filed what he entitled “Motion for Extension of Time.” [Dkt. 14]. The entire
text of that motion follows:
Changing attorney from Donald Deweberry [sic] to an
undecided attorney as of now.
[Dkt. 14].
Plaintiff’s filing does not strictly comply with the July 16, 2012 order in that it neither
states that Plaintiff is representing himself, nor constitutes an entry of appearance. The
court interprets Plaintiff’s motion as a request for more time to obtain representation by
counsel and, by extension, more time in which to effect service.
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, as follows:
– On or before Monday, August 13, 2012, Plaintiff must either:
1) have obtained the services of an attorney and cause
that attorney to enter an appearance in this case;
or

2) file a notice specifically stating that Plaintiff is
representing himself in this case. Should Plaintiff elect
to represent himself, Plaintiff is hereby advised that he
will be expected to comply with all future deadlines in
this case.
– On or before Thursday, August 30, 2012, a return of service
must be filed reflecting service on the Defendant in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
No further extensions of time will be granted, absent a showing of good cause.
Failure to comply with the foregoing deadlines will result in a recommendation that the case
be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of July, 2012.

2