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.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

December 21, 2017

BRENDA ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

          ORDER

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dated December 4, 2017 (the “Report”). (ECF No. 27.) The Report recommends that Plaintiff Brenda Robinson's complaint seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Robinson has not filed objections to the Report, and the deadline for doing so has passed. L.R. 72.1(g)(2).

         For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and Robinson's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

         On March 16, 2011, Robinson filed her Complaint for Review of Decision of the Social Security Administration, alleging that the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied her claim for Supplemental Social Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. (ECF No. 1.) The Commissioner moved to remand for further administrative proceedings under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 14.) On October 4, 2011, the motion to remand was granted. (ECF No. 15.) The subsequent administrative proceedings ended in an unfavorable decision for Robinson. (ECF No. 20.)

         The Commissioner filed an answer in this proceeding on July 28, 2017. (ECF No. 19.) The Court then reopened the case. (ECF No. 20.)

         On August 4, 2017, an attorney with the law firm that represented Robinson initially moved to withdraw, representing that Robinson's attorney had withdrawn his and his firm's representation in 2012. (ECF No. 23.) The Court granted the motion to withdraw the same day. (ECF No. 24.)

         On October 19, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham opined that “it appears that Robinson is now appearing pro se - and has been pursuing her case as a pro se plaintiff since shortly after her case was remanded in October 2011, ” and that “it appears that Robinson is currently incarcerated, and her address of record is incorrect.” (ECF No. 25 at 393.) Having determined that Robinson might not have received notice of the scheduling order, the Magistrate Judge ordered the Clerk of Court to send notification to Robinson's address of record and to the Tennessee Prison for Women in Nashville. (Id. at 393-94.) The Magistrate Judge also amended the scheduling order, giving Robinson until December 1, 2017, to respond to the Commissioner's answer. (Id. at 394.) The Magistrate Judge warned that Robinson's failure to comply would result in dismissal of her case with prejudice. (Id.)

         On December 4, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered the Report. (ECF No. 26.) The Report recommends that the action be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Report explains that:

         The Sixth Circuit considers four factors in reviewing the decision of a district court to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute:

(1) whether the party's failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault;
(2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct;
(3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and
(4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered.

Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363). Based on these factors, the undersigned submits that dismissal of ...


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.