Holt v. Social Security Administration et al

Filing 19

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this case, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 11/1/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CANDICE HOLT,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-0879
Judge Nixon/Frensley

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The pro se Plaintiff filed this case on May 13, 2016.
On September 16, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to show cause why Plaintiff’s
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute (Docket Entry No. 16). The Court
granted this motion, and by order entered September 21, 2016 (Docket Entry No. 17), Plaintiff
was given until October 17, 2016 to file a response to the motion to show cause In that order, the
Court warned Plaintiff that if she did not file a response to these motions by October 17, 2016,
her case could be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and for failure to
prosecute in accordance with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has
not filed a response to the motion.
It is well-settled that federal trial courts have the inherent power to manage their own
dockets. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1961). Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to dismiss an action for the
“fail[ure] to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order[.]” Pursuant to Rule 41(b),
the Court may dismiss an action upon a showing of a clear record of delay, contumacious
conduct, or failure to prosecute by the plaintiff. 1 See Bishop v. Cross, 790 F.2d 38 (6th Cir.
1

Dismissals pursuant to Rule 41(b) may be accomplished by the Court in the absence of a defense motion. Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991).

1986); Patterson v. Township of Grand Blanc, 760 F.2d 686, 688 (6th Cir. 1985) (per curiam),
Carter v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1980).
Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to prosecute this case. She was notified of her
obligation to file a Motion for Judgment in the Order entered on July 22, 2016 (Docket No. 13).
She was later notified of her obligation to file a response to Defendant’s motion to show cause
by order entered September 21, 2016. However, contrary to the Court’s orders, Plaintiff has not
filed a response to the motion, nor made any filings in this case. Even after the Court granted
Defendant’s motion to show cause and warned Plaintiff that her case could be dismissed if she
did not respond to this motion, Plaintiff has not taken further action to prosecute this case.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that this action be DISMISSED
for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court
within fourteen (14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation, and must state with
particularity the specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is
made. Failure to file written objections within the specified time can be deemed to be a waiver
of the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct.
466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY
United States Magistrate Judge