Gammons v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Joel's 15 Report and Recommendation is adopted and this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. This matter is stricken from the active docket. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 1/2/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(copy Plaintiff)(cnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELKINS
JENNIFER GAMMONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-52
(BAILEY)
MICHAEL ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David J. Joel [Doc. 15]
dated December 11, 2012. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to
make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s findings to which
objection is made. However, failure to file objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed
findings and recommendation permits the District Court to review the recommendation
under the standards that the District Court believes are appropriate, and under these
circumstances, the parties’ right to de novo review is waived. See Webb v. Califano, 468
F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1979).
The docket reflects that service was accepted on
December 12, 2012. No objections have been filed.
This comes as no surprise to this Court as it appears the plaintiff has completely
abandoned her appeal. Since this Court granted her request to proceed in forma pauperis
on July 23, 2012 [Doc. 4], the plaintiff has failed to submit any further filings. After the
Commissioner filed his Answer and the Administrative Record on September 27, 2012
[Docs. 8 & 9], this Court entered its Order Directing the Parties to Adhere to the
Procedures, Deadlines and Pleading Requirements of Local Rule of Civil Procedure 9.02
[Doc. 11]. As such, the plaintiff was directed to file her Motion for Summary Judgment by
October 27, 2012. She failed to comply. Subsequently, on November 14, 2012, this Court
entered an Order for Plaintiff to Show Cause Within Fourteen Days why her case should
not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) [Doc. 13]. Again, to
date, the plaintiff has not submitted any filings. As such, the magistrate judge has
recommended that this Court dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.
Accordingly, because no objections have been filed, this report and recommendation
(“R & R”) will be reviewed for clear error. Upon review of the R & R and the record, it is the
opinion of this Court that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 15]
should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED.
For reasons more fully stated in the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge David J. Joel [Doc. 15], this Court ORDERS that this action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to file a Motion for Summary Judgment as
required by LR Civ P 9.02 and as further required by the magistrate judge’s Order dated
November 14, 2012 [Doc. 13]. Accordingly, this matter is hereby ORDERED STRICKEN
from the active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to
the pro se plaintiff.
DATED: January 2, 2013.
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?