Hill-Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2014cv03890 - Document 13 (N.D. Ga. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting 11 Final Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED under this Court's Local Rule 41.3(A)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for Plaintiff Rose Mary Hill-Evans's failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court and willful abandonment of her Social Security appeal. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 11/5/2015. (anc)

Download PDF

Hill-Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 13 Dockets.Justia.com of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”). On April 2, 2015, the Commissioner filed an Answer [6], and, that same day, the Magistrate Judge entered an order [8] directing Plaintiff to file her brief on or before May 4, 2015. Plaintiff failed to do so, and, on June 2, 2015, the Magistrate ordered Plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days, to show cause as to why this action should not be deemed abandoned. ([9]). The Magistrate also ordered Plaintiff to file her brief within that same time frame, and admonished Plaintiff that failure to show cause or file her brief would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the show cause order nor filed her brief. Plaintiff also has not filed any objections to the R&R. II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 2 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and recommendations to which objections have not been asserted, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). B. Analysis The local rules of this Court state that “[t]he court may, with or without notice to the parties, dismiss a civil case for want of prosecution if . . . [a] plaintiff . . . shall, after notice, . . .fail or refuse to obey a lawful order of the court in the case.” L.R. 41.3(A)(2), N.D.Ga. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also provide the Court with discretion to dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “[W]hen a litigant has failed to obey a direct order of the court[,] dismissal is appropriate.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 154 F.R.D. 294, 299 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this action because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s show cause order or to comply with his orders to file her brief. (R&R at 3). The Magistrate concluded that “Plaintiff’s conduct amounts to willful noncompliance with an Order of this Court and willful 3 abandonment of her Social Security appeal.” (R&R at 3). The Court agrees. See Medrano v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, No. 1:09-cv-1003-BBM, 2009 WL 2486313, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2009) (dismissing action when pro se plaintiff failed to respond to any court order or to keep an updated address on file). Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with the Court’s procedural rules. See Kelly v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 376 F. App’x 909, 913-14 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“‘[P]rocedural rules in ordinary civil litigation’ should not be interpreted ‘so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.’” (quoting McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993))). The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation, and this action is required to be dismissed. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III’s Final Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED under this Court’s Local Rule 41.3(A)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for Plaintiff Rose Mary 4 Hill-Evans’s failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court and willful abandonment of her Social Security appeal. SO ORDERED this 5th day of November, 2015. _______________________________ WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.