Hawker v. Colvin
Filing
20
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to 19 Report and Recommendations, 3 Complaint filed by Britt Hawker. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 8/11/17. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
BRITT HAWKER,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 2:16-cv-296-CW-EJF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse
Defendant.
This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On
July 7, 2017, Judge Furse issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the case be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 19.) As Judge Furse notes, Plaintiff Britt Hawker
failed to respond to Judge Furse’s Order to Show Cause, issued December 29, 2016, directing
Ms. Hawker to inform the court as to the status of the case and Ms. Hawker’s intentions to
proceed no later than January 17, 2017. (Dkt. No. 18.) The Order to Show Cause advised Ms.
Hawker that failure to respond “will result in dismissal of the Complaint.” (Id.)
To date, Ms. Hawker has not responded. Over seven months have passed since Judge
Furse issued the Order to Show Cause and nearly a full year has passed since the Commissioner
filed the Administrative Record in this case. (See Dkt. Nos. 10 & 18.)
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do
so has expired. Therefore, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the findings
and conclusions of the court, (Dkt. No. 19), and DISMISSES this case without prejudice for
failure to prosecute.
1
SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
______________________________
CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Judge
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?