Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Cassidy v. Colvin

United States District Court, Third Circuit

January 6, 2014

JEFFREY CASSIDY, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, [1] Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SHERRY R. FALLON, Magistrate Judge.

At Wilmington this 6th day of January, 2014, I recommend that the court dismiss the above-captioned action without prejudice for the following reasons:

1. On December 17, 2012, pro se plaintiff Jeffrey Cassidy ("plaintiff') filed the present action seeking judicial review of a decision of the Social Security Commissioner ("defendant") denying plaintiff's request for benefits. (D.I. 3) Defendant filed an answer on April 27, 2013. (D.I. 11)

2. On May 13, 2013, the court set a briefing schedule for dispositive motions, setting forth a deadline of June 28, 2013 for filing summary judgment motions. (D.I. 14) Plaintiff did not submit a motion for summary judgment on or before the briefing deadline.

3. On September 5, 2013, the court entered an order to show cause, on or before October 7, 2013, why the above-captioned action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to D. Del. LR 41.1.[2] (D.I. 15)

4. On September 26, 2013, plaintiff responded to the order to show cause and moved for an extension of time. Plaintiff indicated that he did not receive the order setting the briefing schedule because his address was incorrect, and he provided the correct address. He requested an extension of thirty (30) days to file his brief. (D.I. 16)

5. On October 4, 2013, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs motion for extension of time, and setting a new briefing schedule with a deadline of November 12, 2013 for plaintiffs opening brief. (D.I. 17)

6. Plaintiff did not file a dispositive motion by the November 12, 2013 deadline. On November 15, 2013, the court entered a second order to show cause, on or before December 16, 2013, why the above-captioned action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to D. Del. LR 41. (D.I. 18)

7. To date, plaintiff has not filed a dispositive motion, and has not filed any additional motions for extension of time or made any other filings since September 26, 2013. Therefore, I recommend that the court dismiss the above-captioned action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.[3] The Clerk of Court shall cause a copy of this Report and Recommendation to be mailed to plaintiff.

8. This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may file and serve specific written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The written objections and responses are each limited to five (5) pages.

9. The parties are directed to the court's Standing Order In Pro Se Matters For Objections Filed Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, dated November 16, 2009, a copy of which is available on the court's website, www.ded.uscourts.gov.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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