Samuel L. v. Frank Bisgnano, Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SAMUEL L.,

,

v. Case No. 5:25-cv-00699-JDW

FRANK BISGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,

.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2026, upon consideration of the Report And Recommendation Of United States Magistrate Judge Caroline G. Cinquanto (ECF No. 36), and after an independent review of the record, I note as follows. 1. Plaintiff filed this action to challenge the Social Security Administration’s denial of his applications for disability benefits. After Defendant filed the administrative record, Plaintiff’s counsel sought and received multiple extensions of time to file Plaintiff's Brief and Statement of Issues. 2. After receiving nearly ten months of extensions, Plaintiff’s counsel advised Judge Cinquanto that he could not identify any argument that would support remand. Counsel communicated that assessment to Plaintiff and moved to withdraw his appearance. Judge Cinquanto directed Plaintiff to file a Brief and Statement of Issues if he intended to pursue this case. Plaintiff did not do so and did not seek additional time. 3. Judge Cinquanto issued her Report and Recommendation on May 28, 2026. Because Plaintiff failed to pursue the case after being notified of counsel's assessment and being given an opportunity to proceed on his own, Judge Cinquanto considered whether dismissal was appropriate under the factors set forth

, 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). She concluded that the relevant factors favored dismissal because Plaintiff bore responsibility for failing to prosecute the action, Defendant could not respond to unidentified claims of error, and

no lesser sanction would move the case forward. Judge Cinquanto further concluded that dismissal should be with prejudice because Plaintiff can no longer file a timely challenge to the Commissioner’s decision. 4. No one filed an objection or response to the Report and Recommendation

that Judge Cinquanto issued. When the parties do not object to a report and recommendation, I review the recommendation under a plain error standard ( , 33 F. Supp.3d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998)). Following my independent review of the record and Judge Cinquanto’s Report and Recommendation,

I find no error and conclude that good cause exists to adopt Judge Cinquanto’s recommendation because the balance of the factors supports dismissal with prejudice.

Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. The matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute; 3. Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED; and 4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes. BY THE COURT:

JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J.