Holloway v. Saul

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

RODICA MICHELLE ) HOLLOWAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV420-313 ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiff Rodica Michelle Holloway filed a Complaint against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration seeking court review of an adverse decision by the Social Security Administration related to her Disability Insurance Benefits Claim. See generally doc. 1. The Clerk issued a Summons on December 13, 2021. Doc. 7. Holloway filed a motion for entry of default, doc. 8, and a motion for default judgment, doc. 9, on March 28, 2022. Because the defendant had not been properly served, her motions were denied. See doc. 10. In its Order denying those motions, the Court also informed Plaintiff of her obligation to serve the defendant pursuant to Rule 4(m). Doc. 10 at 3-4. It afforded her “an additional 30 days in which to effect service pursuant to Rule 4(i).” Id. at 4. It also informed her that she is

entitled to service by the United States Marshal, but that she must formally request such service no later than June 28, 2022. Id. at 4-5.

Thirty days have now elapsed since the Court’s prior Order, and the Plaintiff has not requested Marshal service or filed a proof of service indicating that she served the defendant. See generally docket.

As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, “Rule 4(m) gives the Court the authority to dismiss a Complaint for that failure.” Doc. 10 at 3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (mandating dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure

to serve within the time specified by the Court). Additionally, this Court has the authority to prune cases from its dockets where parties have failed to comply with its Orders. See S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b); see also Link

v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (“The

district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Floyd v. United States, CV491-277 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 1992). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for her failure to comply with the Court’s Order, her failure to serve the defendant

pursuant to Rule 4(m), and her failure to prosecute this action. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED, this 15th day of July, 2022. ( Asya ex CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA