Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 16

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint - Social Security, recommending the action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 2/19/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 02/02/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Thomas Christopher Stevens,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

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

C/A No.: 1:15-2823-BHH-SVH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brought this matter appealing a decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security on July 17, 2015. [ECF No. 1]. Defendant filed an answer and the administrative
record of the underlying proceedings on November 19, 2015. [ECF Nos. 9, 10]. Pursuant
to Local Civ. Rule 83VII.04 (D.S.C.), Plaintiff’s brief was due on December 29, 2015.
Plaintiff requested and received a 30-day extension of that deadline, making his brief due
on January 28, 2016. [ECF Nos. 11, 12]. On January 29, 2016, the undersigned issued an
order directing Plaintiff to file a brief by February 1, 2016, and notifying him that failure
to respond may result in the action being recommended for dismissal with prejudice for
failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 14]. Plaintiff has not yet filed a brief in this matter. As
such, it appears that Plaintiff wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, the
undersigned recommends this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

February 2, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached
“Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

2

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report
and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis
for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not
conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of
service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5
may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the
District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).