Vickie Wright v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

E.D. Missouri

Vickie Wright v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

DecidedJanuary 5, 2026

Docket4:23-cv-01360

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Vickie Wright v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, (E.D. Mo. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION VICKIE WRIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 4:23-cv-01360-MTS ) FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of ) the Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of the file. On September 22, 2025, the Court entered an order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [12], without prejudice. Doc. [18] at 5. The Court determined that it did not have sufficient information to rule on Defendant’s res judicata arguments—namely that, by bringing this action, Plaintiff impermissibly seeks to relitigate an adverse decision that the Social Security Administration rendered on May 03, 2021. Id. To that end, the Court ordered Defendant to supplement the record and file the Certified Administrative Record underlying the agency’s May 2021 decision. Defendant did so on December 09, 2025. Doc. [21]. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file, “within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the Certified Administrative Record, . . . (1) a copy of the relevant Appeals Council’s letter denying her request for review and (2) a written response that complies with the instructions set forth in [the Court’s September 22, 2025,] Memorandum and Order.” Doc. [18] at 6. There, the Court instructed Plaintiff to provide four discrete pieces of information in her required response, including “(1) the date of the ALJ’s decision she is challenging, (2) the date she received notice of the ALJ’s decision, (3) whether and when she requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s decision, and (4) the date she received the Appeals Council’s letter denying review of the ALJ’s decision.” Jd. at 5. The Court warned Plaintiff that “failure to timely comply . . . [would] result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.” /d. Plaintiff’s deadline to comply was Tuesday, December 30, 2025, and she has not done so. Nor has she sought additional time in which to do so. Accordingly, the Court will enter herewith an Order of Dismissal that dismisses this action without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to follow the Court’s order and for her failure to prosecute this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order). Dated this 5th day of January 2026.

A Pe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION VICKIE WRIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 4:23-cv-01360-MTS ) FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of ) the Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of the file. On September 22, 2025, the Court entered an order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [12], without prejudice. Doc. [18] at 5. The Court determined that it did not have sufficient information to rule on Defendant’s res judicata arguments—namely that, by bringing this action, Plaintiff impermissibly seeks to relitigate an adverse decision that the Social Security Administration rendered on May 03, 2021. Id. To that end, the Court ordered Defendant to supplement the record and file the Certified Administrative Record underlying the agency’s May 2021 decision. Defendant did so on December 09, 2025. Doc. [21]. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file, “within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the Certified Administrative Record, . . . (1) a copy of the relevant Appeals Council’s letter denying her request for review and (2) a written response that complies with the instructions set forth in [the Court’s September 22, 2025,] Memorandum and Order.” Doc. [18] at 6. There, the Court instructed Plaintiff to provide four discrete pieces of information in her required response, including “(1) the date of the ALJ’s decision she is challenging, (2) the date she received notice of the ALJ’s decision, (3) whether and when she requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s decision, and (4) the date she received the Appeals Council’s letter denying review of the ALJ’s decision.” Jd. at 5. The Court warned Plaintiff that “failure to timely comply . . . [would] result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.” /d. Plaintiff’s deadline to comply was Tuesday, December 30, 2025, and she has not done so. Nor has she sought additional time in which to do so. Accordingly, the Court will enter herewith an Order of Dismissal that dismisses this action without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to follow the Court’s order and for her failure to prosecute this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order). Dated this 5th day of January 2026.

A Pe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vickie Wright v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vickie-wright-v-frank-bisignano-commissioner-of-the-social-security-moed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack