Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01241/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01241-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY E. CRUZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1241 DAD

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

On June 22, 2005, the court issued a scheduling order which required plaintiff to

file a motion for summary judgment and/or remand within a required time. The case was

subsequently remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence six of 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant’s answer after remand was filed on November 28, 2007, and the

administrative record was lodged the following day. On November 30, 2007, a member of the

court’s staff placed a courtesy call to plaintiff’s counsel concerning the status of the case. 

Counsel indicated that he had not represented plaintiff in the administrative proceedings on

remand but would investigate.

By order filed December 13, 2007, the court directed plaintiff to file a status

report within fifteen days. Plaintiff did not file a status report or respond in any way either to the

December 13, 2007 order or to defendant’s answer after remand. Pursuant to the court’s further

Case 2:05-cv-01241-DAD Document 22 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

order filed January 7, 2008, plaintiff was required to file and serve any motion for summary

judgment and/or remand on or before January 17, 2008, in accordance with the June 22, 2005

scheduling order. Plaintiff was advised that failure to timely file the required motion will result

in dismissal of the action. The deadline has now passed, and plaintiff has not filed the required

motion or responded in any way to the court’s orders.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

DATED: January 22, 2008.

DAD:kw

Ddad1/orders.socsec/cruz1241.dismiss.lop

Case 2:05-cv-01241-DAD Document 22 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 2