Channing v. Berryhill
Filing
8
ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendations and dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint without prejudice. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 4/26/2018. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING
)
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
)
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
FREDERICK CHANNING,
C.A. No. 17-461 WES
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Magistrate
Recommendation
Judge
Lincoln
(“R&R”)
on
D.
Almond
February
21,
filed
2018
a
Report
(ECF
No.
and
4),
recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
No. 1) without prejudice for failure to respond to the Court’s
January 10, 2018 Order To Show Cause (ECF No. 3) and for lack of
diligent prosecution pursuant to LR Cv 41.
Almond’s
recommendation
resulted
from
Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff’s
failure
to
file proof of service with the Court, and his subsequent failure
to respond to the Order To Show Cause as to why the case should
not be dismissed for failure to file proof of service.
Although Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R (ECF No.
6), he failed to respond to Magistrate Judge Almond’s reasons
for recommending dismissal.
Instead, Plaintiff provided proof
that he completed service on January 3, 2018.
Serv., Ex. 1, ECF No. 6-1.)
(See Aff. of
However, Plaintiff’s opportunity to
provide proof of service has long since passed; his failure to
substantively
right
to
object
review
by
Court’s decision.
to
the
this
R&R
Court
constitutes
and
any
a
right
waiver
to
of
any
appeal
the
Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of Carolina,
747 F.3d 15, 21-22 (1st Cir. 2014); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); LR Cv 72(c)(1).
Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the relevant papers,
the
Court
Plaintiff’s
ACCEPTS
in
Complaint
its
(ECF
entirety
No.
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: April 26, 2018
2
1)
the
is,
R&R
(ECF
therefore,
No.
4).
dismissed
Case 1:17-cv-00461-WES-LDA Document 4 (Case Participants)
Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
FREDERICK CHANNING
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration
:
:
: C.A. No. 17-0461-WES
:
:
:
:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Lincoln D. Almond, United States Magistrate Judge
This Social Security Appeal was initiated by counsel on October 5, 2017. It was direct
assigned to me per Local Rule Gen. 105(a)(4).1 On January 10, 2018, I issued an Order to Show
Cause since this case had been pending over ninety days without proof of service having been
filed by Plaintiff. (ECF Doc. No. 3). Plaintiff was ordered to respond in writing to the Order to
Show Cause by January 31, 2018 or the case would be dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution.
No response was filed. Accordingly, I recommend that this case be DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to respond to the Court’s January 10, 2018 Order to Show Cause and for
lack of diligent prosecution.
Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filed
with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of its receipt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); LR Cv
72. Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review
by the District Court and the right to appeal the District Court’s decision. See United States v.
1
Absent service and the appearance of Defendant, the standard consent forms were never issued. Thus, the
required Party Consent to Magistrate Judge Assignment has not been obtained.
Case 1:17-cv-00461-WES-LDA Document 4 (Case Participants)
Filed 02/21/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20
Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616
F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir. 1980).
/s/ Lincoln D. Almond
LINCOLN D. ALMOND
United States Magistrate Judge
February 21, 2018
-2-
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?