Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

December 1, 2014

CURTIS L. WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant

Curtis L Wilson, Plaintiff, Pro se, Saginaw, MI USA.

For Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant: Natasha Oeltjen, Social Security Administration, Boston, MA USA; Vanessa Miree AUSA Mays, U.S. Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI USA.

Patricia T. Morris, United States Magistrate Judge. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF, DISTRICT JUDGE.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PURSUANT TO RULE 41(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Patricia T. Morris, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. REPORT

A. Introduction

By order of U.S. District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff, this case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for general case management on June 5, 2014. (Doc. 3.) Service of process was effectuated and the Commissioner of Social Security filed an answer to the Complaint on August 13, 2014. (Doc. 9.) This Court issued a scheduling order on August 14, 2014, ordering Plaintiff to file his motion for summary judgment by September 15, 2014. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff did not file a motion nor did he ask for an extension of time. On October 10, 2014, this Court entered an Order for Plaintiff to Show Cause why the undersigned should not recommend that the Complaint be dismissed for want of prosecution, allowing Plaintiff until October 24, 2014 to respond. (Doc. 13.) To date, no response has been made.

B. Discussion

Rule 41(b) gives a court the authority to dismiss a case for " failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court . . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). " This measure is available to the district court as a tool to effect 'management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts [and] opposing parties.'" Knoll v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1441 (10th Cir. 1984)). " Not only may a district court dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also sua sponte dismiss an action whenever necessary to 'achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.'" Anthony v. Marion Co. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)). When deciding whether to dismiss a case for want of prosecution, courts are guided by competing concerns:

On the one hand, there is the court's need to manage its docket, the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to a defendant because the plaintiff has failed to actively pursue its claims. . . . On the other hand ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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