Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00509/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00509-0/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)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY O’NEAL CROOMES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 14-00509-CG-N

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, )

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action to appeal an unfavorable benefits 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Doc. 1. This case was referred to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

72.2(c)(3) for appropriate action. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and to 

comply with the Court’s Order dated March 12, 2015, it is recommended that this 

action be dismissed without prejudice. 

On November 5, 2014, this Court issued a Social Security Scheduling Order 

instructing the Plaintiff to file a brief within 30 days of the filing of the transcript 

and answer by the Defendant. Doc. 5 at 1. The Defendant filed its Answer and the 

Social Security Transcript on February 4, 2015, making the original deadline for the 

Plaintiff’s brief March 6, 2015. Docs. 10, 11. The Plaintiff failed to file a brief by the

original deadline. On March 12, 2015, the Court extended the deadline until March 

27, 2015, for Plaintiff to file the brief and cautioned the Plaintiff that failure to 

Case 1:14-cv-00509-CG-N Document 14 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

comply could result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply. Doc. 12. The 

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order, though the Order was delivered by 

Certified Mail and signed for by the Plaintiff on March 17, 2015. Docs. 12-1, 13. Due 

to this failure, the Court construes the lack of a response as an indication that 

Plaintiff is no longer interested in proceeding with his action.

As a consequence of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order and to 

prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are available 

to the Court, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser 

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 

L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent 

authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust 

Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th 

Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); 

Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 

1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 

2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to manage 

their own proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related 

expenses as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th 

Cir.) (finding that the court=s inherent power to manage actions before it permitted 

the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 

(1993).

Case 1:14-cv-00509-CG-N Document 14 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything 

in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file 

specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. In order to be specific, an objection must 

identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the 

basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that 

merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate 

Judge is not specific.

DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of April 2015.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00509-CG-N Document 14 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 3