(SS) (PS) Lucas v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2014cv02804 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/04/15 ORDERING this case is REASSIGNED to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller and Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for all further proceedings; the new Case Number: 2:14-cv-0804 KJM AC SS PS; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court's orders. Case referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to these F&Rs due within 21 days. (Benson, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(SS) (PS) Lucas v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY KENT LUCAS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:14-cv-2804 AC ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 18 19 Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his application for a period of 20 disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. ECF 21 No. 1. Defendant Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that plaintiff’s complaint is 22 barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ECF No. 13. 23 The court ordered plaintiff to file an opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, no later 24 than May 7, 2015. ECF No. 14. The time for plaintiff’s response expired, but he did not oppose 25 the motion to dismiss, nor otherwise respond to the court’s order. The court then ordered plaintiff 26 to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. ECF No. 15. The 27 time for plaintiff’s response has expired, but he has not responded to the court’s order. 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a district judge to this matter. 3 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 This action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s 5 6 orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. R. 110. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days 8 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 10 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 11 Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all 12 parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file 13 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 14 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 15 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: August 4, 2015 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
