Williams v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER Plaintiff and her counsel are directed to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a brief by January 31, 2012. Plaintiff and her counsel are further advised that if she fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on January 9, 2012. (cwil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Unice Hammond Williams,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:11-1506-TLW-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this matter appealing a decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security on June 20, 2011. Defendant filed an answer and the administrative record of the
underlying social security proceedings on October 20, 2011. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule
83VII.04 (D.S.C.), Plaintiff’s brief was due on November 28, 2011. Plaintiff failed to file
a brief by November 28, 2011. The court inquired of Plaintiff’s counsel whether a brief
would be forthcoming and indicated that the matter would be recommended for dismissal
with prejudice if neither a brief nor a motion for an extension was filed. Plaintiff’s
counsel then filed a request for an extension of time to file a brief until December 16,
2011, which was granted. [Entry #17, #18].
Notwithstanding the courts prior warning, Plaintiff has not yet filed a brief in this
matter. As such, it appears to the court that Plaintiff wishes to abandon this action. Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiff and her counsel are directed to advise the court whether she
wishes to continue with this case and to file a brief by January 31, 2012. Plaintiff and her
counsel are further advised that if she fails to respond, this action will be recommended

for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69,
70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). No further extensions w ill be granted absent
exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s counsel’s workload does not constitute exceptional
cicumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 9, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2