Marshall v. Social Security, No. 2:2020cv00194 - Document 30 (E.D. Va. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER: The Court does hereby ACCEPT the findings and recommendations set forth in the reportof the United States Magistrate Judge filed July 6, 2021, and it is therefore ORDERED that theCommissioner's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. Copies of Order sent as DIRECTED on 9.10.21. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 9/10/2021. (epri, )

Download PDF
Marshall v. Social Security Doc. 30 Case 2:20-cv-00194-RAJ-DEM Document 30 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 135 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division FILED SEP 1 0 2021 APRIL M., CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK, VA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO.2:20cvl94 ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ORDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on April M.'s ("Plaintiff) complaint for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") denying Plaintiffs claim for supplemental security income benefits and disability insurance benefits. On February 25, 2021, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B)and(C),Rule 72(b) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and Rule 72 ofthe Rules ofthe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for a report and recommendation. On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff was directed to file with 30 days a Motion for Summary Judgment with memorandum supporting her contentions and containing a state of undisputed facts. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff failed to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, or otherwise respond to the Court's direction, by the deadline date. On April 12, 2021, SSA moved to have the case dismissed for lack of prosecution. (ECF Nos. 20-21). On May 4, 2021, the Court issued a Show Cause Order directing her to show cause why her Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00194-RAJ-DEM Document 30 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 136 to comply with the Rules and Order ofthe Court. (ECF No.23). Plaintifffailed to respond to the Court's Show Cause Order within the time limit set out in the Order. On May 28,2021, after the deadline date set out in the Show Cause Order, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond. (ECF No. 24). Plaintiffs motion did not, however, specify the time for the extension, nor did it explain why the extension was being requested or why she failed to meet the previous deadlines. On June 22,2021,the Court entered a second Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause within seven days (or June 29, 2021) why her Amended Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 25). On June 29, 2021, Plaintiff telephoned the Court stating she would be filing another Motion for Extension of Time. On June 2, 2021, after the third extension had expired. Plaintiff filed a letter response requesting 30-45 days to get her "full medical history. In addition to being untimely, the letter was not certified as served on opposing counsel. On July 6, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed his report recommending that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted and the instant action be dismissed. By copy of the report, each party was advised of their right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations the Magistrate Judge made. The Court has received no objections to the report and the time for filing the same has expired. The Court does hereby ACCEPT the findings and recommendations set forth in the report of the United States Magistrate Judge filed July 6, 2021, and it is therefore ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED, The Clerk shall mail a copy ofthis final Order to counsel for the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. Norfolk, Virginia September Jq ,2021 Raymond X Ja^on United States District Judge

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.