United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BARBARA D. HOLMES United States Magistrate Judge
Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge
filed this action on June 21, 2016, seeking judicial review
of the administrative denial of social security benefits.
Defendant subsequently filed an answer and the administrative
record. (Docket Nos. 11, 12). By Order entered October 11,
2016 (the “October 11 Order”) (Docket No. 13),
the Court gave Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a motion
for judgment on the record and an accompanying memorandum.
Plaintiff failed to do so, and has not filed any motion or
made any other type of filing since entry of the October 11
January 3, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to show cause why
Plaintiff’s complaint should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute (Docket No. 16). The Court granted this
motion, and by Order entered January 11, 2017 (the
“January 11 Order”) (Docket No. 17), Plaintiff
was given until February 13, 2017 to file a motion for
judgment on the administrative record and/or a response to
the motion to show cause. In the January 11 Order, the Court
warned Plaintiff that if she did not file her motion for
judgment on the administrative record or otherwise show cause
why her action should not be dismissed by February 13, 2017,
her case could be dismissed for failure to comply with the
Court’s Orders and for failure to prosecute in
accordance with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiff has not filed a motion for judgment on
the administrative record, nor has she filed a response
showing cause why her action should not be dismissed. As
noted, a certified mail return receipt shows that Plaintiff
received the October 11 Order, but more recent certified
mailings to Plaintiff have been returned as unclaimed,
including the Court’s January 11 Order (Docket No. 22).
well-established that federal trial courts have the inherent
power to manage their own dockets. Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734
(1961). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) allows the Court to dismiss an
action for the “fail[ure] to prosecute or to comply
with these rules or a court order[.]” Pursuant to Rule
41(b), the Court may dismiss an action upon a showing of a
clear record of delay, contumacious conduct, or failure to
prosecute by the plaintiff. See Bishop v. Cross, 790
F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1986); Patterson v. Township of Grand
Blanc, 760 F.2d 686, 688 (6th Cir. 1985) (per curiam);
Carter v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, 636 F.2d 159,
161 (6th Cir. 1980).
has had ample time to prosecute this case. By her
acknowledged receipt of the October 11 Order (see
Docket No. 15), Plaintiff was notified of her obligation to
file a motion for judgment on the record within thirty days,
which she failed to do. Return of the most recent certified
mailings to Plaintiff (Docket Nos. 22 and 23) suggests that
either Plaintiff is not claiming certified mail or she has
moved. Neither of those circumstances compels a different
outcome. If Plaintiff has not moved and is simply not
claiming certified mail, she is deliberately disregarding the
Court’s orders, which warrants dismissal. If Plaintiff
has moved, she did not notify the Court of her change of
address, which would be another instance of her failure to
timely prosecute this action, thus warranting dismissal.
Either way, Plaintiffs case is properly
on the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge
respectfully recommends that this action be DISMISSED for
Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this case, pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of service
of this Report and Recommendation, and must state with
particularity the specific portions of this Report and
Recommendation to which objection is made. Failure to file
written objections within the specified time can be deemed to
be a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court’s
order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct.
466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and
Recommendation to Plaintiff by certified mail and by first
 Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017. Pursuant
to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy
A. Berryhill is substituted for former Acting Commissioner
Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit.
 The Court’s October 11 Order was
mailed to Plaintiff by certified mail and claimed by
Plaintiff. See Docket No. 15. However, since that
time, certified mail sent to Plaintiff has been returned ...