Lyles v. Department of Social Security Administration

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 01, 2025 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION JALIL M. L. § VS CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-1934 COMMISSIONER of the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION — §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court in the above referenced proceeding is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) and Judge Bennett’s Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 10) that the motion should be granted. Defendant neither responded to the motion nor did he object to the Memorandum and Recommendation and the time for doing so has passed. The Court notes that in the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge noted that the Motion to dismiss was not responded to and thus under our Local Rules would normally be considered unopposed. The Local Rules of the Southern District of Texas state that “[fJailure to respond to a motion will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S. Dist. Tex. L.R. 7.4; see also Hanen L.R. 7(D). Therefore, if controlling the local rules would allow the Court to grant Defendant’s motion as it should be considered unopposed. Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has explained that ‘although we have endorsed the adoption of local rules that require parties to file responses to opposed motions, we have not approved the automatic grant, upon failure to comply with such rules, of motions that are dispositive of the litigation. See Johnson v. Pettiford, 442, F.3d 917,918 (Sth Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 757 F.2d 698, 707-09 (Sth Cir. 1985); Ramsey v. Signal Delivery Serv., 631 F.2d 1210, 1213-14 (Sth Cir. 2980)). In other words, where a party does not respond to a summary judgment motion, such

failure does not permit the court to enter a “default” summary judgment. Eversley v. Mbank Dall., 843 F.2d 172, 174 (Sth Cir. 1988). This Court notes that the Magistrate Judge followed the Circuit’s dictates and performed the required review and did not enter a “default” dismissal. Instead, he meticulously walked through and weighed the law and the evidence. Upon review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No.10) is ADOPTED, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Entry of this Order shall constitute Final Judgment. SIGNED, this 3@ day of September 2025.

ANDREW S. HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE