Cantu v. Social Security Administration et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION, et al,
February 24, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-425
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks review of a final decision
denying him social security benefits. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on October 6, 2016.
(D.E. 1). On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff was ordered to complete the summons forms and
return them to the Clerk of Court. (D.E. 4). Plaintiff was advised not to delay in
returning the necessary forms because his case could not proceed until Defendants were
properly served in accordance with the deadlines for service set by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. (D.E. 4). Further, Plaintiff was warned that a district court may dismiss
an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any order of the court. (D.E. 4);
McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
On January 26, 2017, after Plaintiff failed to comply and failed to serve the
Defendants, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause on or before February 8, 2017, as to why
this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (D.E. 6). Plaintiff was again
warned that a district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply
with any order of the court. (D.E. 6, Page 2). To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply and
the Defendants have not been served. The deadline for service has passed. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4m. The Court finds Plaintiff’s default in this action demonstrates a continuing
and intentional failure to prosecute his claims.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s case is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
ORDERED this 24th day of February, 2017.
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?