Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00013/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00013-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLIE DENSON, : 

o/b/o J.M., : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0013-CG-M 

 : 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commission of Social Security, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff has been ordered to file a Brief and Fact Sheet 

in this action on two different occasions (Docs. 7, 16). In the 

most recent Order, Plaintiff was to have filed the Brief and 

Fact Sheet as of June 8, 2010. As of this date, Plaintiff has 

still not complied with the Orders of this Court nor otherwise 

contacted the court. The mailings to Plaintiff by the Court 

have not been returned as undeliverable. 

Therefore, it is recommended that this action be Dismissed, 

with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action 

and obey the Orders of the Court. 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE=S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS 

 AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION 

 AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

Case 1:10-cv-00013-CG-M Document 17 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 3
1. Objection. Any party who objects to this 

recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen days of 

the date of service of this document, file specific written 

objections with the clerk of court. Failure to do so will bar a 

de novo determination by the district judge of anything in the 

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual 

findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C); 

Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. 

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The 

procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of 

the magistrate judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 

(June 1, 1997), which provides that: 

A party may object to a recommendation entered by 

a magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a 

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A), by filing 

a AStatement of Objection to Magistrate Judge=s 

Recommendation@ within fourteen days after being served 

with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different 

time is established by order. The statement of 

objection shall specify those portions of the 

recommendation to which objection is made and the 

basis for the objection. The objecting party shall 

submit to the district judge, at the time of filing 

the objection, a brief setting forth the party=s 

arguments that the magistrate judge=s recommendation 

should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition 

made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the 

original brief submitted to the magistrate judge, 

although a copy of the original brief may be submitted 

or referred to and incorporated into the brief in 

support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief 

in support of the objection may be deemed an 

abandonment of the objection. 

A magistrate judge=s recommendation cannot be appealed to a 

Court of Appeals; only the district judge=s order or judgment can 

be appealed. 

Case 1:10-cv-00013-CG-M Document 17 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 3
2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape 

recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 

the magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records 

in this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party 

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the 

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination 

that transcription is necessary is required before the United 

States will pay the cost of the transcript. 

DONE this 15th day of June, 2010. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00013-CG-M Document 17 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 3