Lee v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: July 6, 2022
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01067
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION

DAVID B. LEE PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 1:21-cv-01067

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

David B. Lee (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Act. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to follow a Court Order and timely file his Brief, this Court recommends Plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. 1. Background: On December 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint appealing the Commissioner’s final administrative decision denying his claim for a period of disability and DIB under Title II of the Act. ECF No. 1. On March 25, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and a Social Security Transcript of the administrative proceedings. ECF Nos. 9, 10. On March 28, 2022, this Court entered a Text Only Social Security Scheduling Order directing Plaintiff to file a brief within 30 days of the date of the filing of the transcript. ECF No. 11. The Order specifically stated Plaintiff’s brief was due by April 27, 2022. The Order placed Plaintiff on notice that “Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely brief may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.” Id. for Plaintiff and gave Plaintiff an extension of time to file his brief until May 27, 2022. ECF No.

13. This Order also placed Plaintiff on notice that “Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely brief may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.” Id. Plaintiff failed to file his brief by this deadline. On June 6, 2022, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not recommend the dismissal of this case due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action, comply with an order of the Court, and file an appeal brief. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff was to respond no later than June 20, 2022. Id. Plaintiff has failed to respond to this Court Order and has not filed his appeal brief. 2. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds the Plaintiff has failed to show cause why

the action against Defendant Social Security Administration should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Court recommends the Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED. The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). ENTERED this 6th day of July 2022. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE