Roquemore v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

N.D. Texas

Roquemore v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

DecidedJanuary 16, 2025

Docket7:24-cv-00155

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Roquemore v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, (N.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

BREON N. ROQUEMORE, § Plaintiff, § VS. § Civil Action No. 7:24-CV-00155-O § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 3, 2. The case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order No. 3. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. NATURE OF THE CASE This case is a new civil action. B. PARTIES Breon N. Roquemore is the Plaintiff and the Social Security Administration Commissioner is the sole Defendant. ECF No. 1. C. LEGAL ANALYSIS On December 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed an incomplete long-form motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 et. seq. ECF No. 2. That application/motion did not provide, inter alia, Plaintiff’s income and asset information. On December 27, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the total filing and administrative fees or fully complete all sections of the 1 long-form application to proceed in forma pauperis no later than January 10, 2025. ECF No. 8. The Court explicitly warned that failure to comply may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d

1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court’s inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Because Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s order, this case may be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). RECOMMENDATION It is therefore RECOMMENDED all of Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution, without prejudice to their being refiled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 2 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days). ORDER Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until January 30, 2025 to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and is hereby, RETURNED to the docket of the United States District Judge. SIGNED this 16 day of January 2025. Cc) ?) Than. spc UNITFEDATATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

BREON N. ROQUEMORE, § Plaintiff, § VS. § Civil Action No. 7:24-CV-00155-O § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 3, 2. The case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order No. 3. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. NATURE OF THE CASE This case is a new civil action. B. PARTIES Breon N. Roquemore is the Plaintiff and the Social Security Administration Commissioner is the sole Defendant. ECF No. 1. C. LEGAL ANALYSIS On December 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed an incomplete long-form motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 et. seq. ECF No. 2. That application/motion did not provide, inter alia, Plaintiff’s income and asset information. On December 27, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the total filing and administrative fees or fully complete all sections of the 1 long-form application to proceed in forma pauperis no later than January 10, 2025. ECF No. 8. The Court explicitly warned that failure to comply may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d

1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court’s inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Because Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s order, this case may be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). RECOMMENDATION It is therefore RECOMMENDED all of Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution, without prejudice to their being refiled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 2 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days). ORDER Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until January 30, 2025 to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and is hereby, RETURNED to the docket of the United States District Judge. SIGNED this 16 day of January 2025. Cc) ?) Than. spc UNITFEDATATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roquemore v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roquemore-v-commissioner-social-security-administration-txnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack