Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dozier v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

April 29, 2018

Lisa Mechelle Dozier, Plaintiff,
v.
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          Kevin F. McDonald United States Magistrate Judge.

         The plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383(c)(3)), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

         This case is before the court for a report and recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a)(D.S.C.), concerning the disposition of Social Security cases in this District, and Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B).[1]

         On December 1, 2017, the Commissioner filed an answer in this case, and the plaintiff's brief was therefore due by January 2, 2018. See Local Civ. Rule 83.VII.04 (D.S.C.) (providing that the plaintiff's brief is due within 30 days of the filing of the answer). The plaintiff did not timely file her brief. Accordingly, on January 29, 2018, this court issued an order giving the plaintiff until February 28, 2018, to file a written brief. Again, the plaintiff did not file a brief. On March 5, 2018, a second order was filed giving the plaintiff through March 26, 2018, to file a brief. The plaintiff was advised that if she did not file a brief by March 26th, the undersigned would recommend dismissal of her case for failure to prosecute (doc. 31). To date, the plaintiff has not filed a brief.

         A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with orders of the court. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir.1989). In considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court is required to consider four factors:

(1) the degree of personal responsibility on the part of the plaintiff;
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay;
(3) the history of the plaintiff in proceeding in a dilatory manner; and,
(4) the existence of less drastic sanctions other than dismissal.

Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir.1978).

         In the present case, the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and she is thus entirely responsible for her actions. It is solely through the plaintiff's neglect, and not that of an attorney, that no brief has been filed. Meanwhile, the defendant is left to wonder when the action will be resolved. The plaintiff has not complied with the court's orders requiring her to file a brief. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes the plaintiff has abandoned her lawsuit. No other reasonable sanctions are available.

         Based on the foregoing, it appears the plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b).

         IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

         Notice of Right to File Objections to Report ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.