Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. New York

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedFebruary 9, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00456

StatusUnknown

This text of Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security (Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For Online Publication Only EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X STANLEY DAVIS,

Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 21-CV-0456(JMA)(AKT) FILED COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, CLERK 2/9/2021 10: 25 am Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------X U.S. DISTRICT COURT AZRACK, United States District Judge: EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LONG ISLAND OFFICE The Court’s records reflect that the complaint in this action was filed on January 25, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff paid the filing fee on January 27, 2021. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Accordingly, if service is not made upon defendant by April 26, 2021, or plaintiff fails to show good cause why such service has not been effected, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is to provide a copy of this Order to defendant along with the summons and complaint and shall file proof of service with the Court. Plaintiff is required to advise the Clerk of Court of any changes of address. Failure to keep the Court informed of plaintiff’s current address may result in dismissal of the case. Although plaintiff paid the filing fee, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that should plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, any appeal from this Order would not be - ---------- taken in good faith and therefore -in -fo-rm--a -pa-u-p-e-ri-s status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2021 Central Islip, New York ___/s/ (JMA)____ ____________ JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For Online Publication Only EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X STANLEY DAVIS,

Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 21-CV-0456(JMA)(AKT) FILED COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, CLERK 2/9/2021 10: 25 am Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------X U.S. DISTRICT COURT AZRACK, United States District Judge: EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LONG ISLAND OFFICE The Court’s records reflect that the complaint in this action was filed on January 25, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff paid the filing fee on January 27, 2021. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Accordingly, if service is not made upon defendant by April 26, 2021, or plaintiff fails to show good cause why such service has not been effected, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is to provide a copy of this Order to defendant along with the summons and complaint and shall file proof of service with the Court. Plaintiff is required to advise the Clerk of Court of any changes of address. Failure to keep the Court informed of plaintiff’s current address may result in dismissal of the case. Although plaintiff paid the filing fee, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that should plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, any appeal from this Order would not be - ---------- taken in good faith and therefore -in -fo-rm--a -pa-u-p-e-ri-s status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2021 Central Islip, New York ___/s/ (JMA)____ ____________ JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-commissioner-of-social-security-nyed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack