HARRIS
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to timely file a memorandum of law, despite multiple orders, warrants dismissal of the action.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appealed a Social Security decision. He was ordered twice to file a memorandum of law in support of his claims but f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Obey Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon periodic review. Because Plaintiff has failed to timely file a memorandum of law in opposition to the Commissioner’s decision, despite twice being ordered to do so, this action is due to be dismissed, without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
A district court may dismiss a plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 41(b) or the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F. 3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Under Rule 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss this action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case or obey a court order under Rule 41(b). Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F. 3d at 1337. Plaintiff, Reginald A. Harris, proceeding pro se, initiated this appeal in June 2020 by filing a Complaint for Review of a Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income Decision. Doc. 1. On February 10, 2021, the Magistrate Judge
entered a Scheduling Order directing Plaintiff to submit a memorandum of law in support of the allegations in his Complaint within sixty (60) days, thereby making Plaintiff’s memorandum of law due by Monday April 12, 2021. Doc. 15. Plaintiff did not comply with the February 10, 2021 Scheduling Order. In a September 17, 2021, order the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff had not yet filed a memorandum of law
in support of his claims. Doc. 17. The Magistrate Judge directed the Plaintiff to file his memorandum of law in opposition to the Commissioner’s decision no later than October1, 2021.1 Id. The Magistrate Judge cautioned that Plaintiff’s failure to timely file within the time provided “may result in the dismissal of this case without further
notice.” Id. Despite being twice ordered to do so, Plaintiff has not filed his memorandum of law nor sought an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
oe © WJ GAd_a Mn Ts pl wel Q Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Reginald Harris, pro se Counsel of Record