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)

Download PDF
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 <font color=teal>(Case Participants)</font> 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 <font color=teal>(Case Participants)</font> 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?