Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00410/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00410-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JAY STEWART, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13cv410-MEF-WC 

 ) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

) 

 Defendant. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Plaintiff, Jay Stewart, filed his complaint with this court on June 13, 2013 based 

on the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the 

Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. On June 9, 2014, the District 

Judge entered an Order referring this case to the undersigned magistrate judge for “all 

pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders or recommendations as may be appropriate.” 

Order (Doc. 14). For the reasons that follow, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the 

undersigned that this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and abandonment of 

claims. 

II. DISCUSSION 

 On June 17, 2013, the undersigned entered an Order requiring the Commissioner 

to file her answer to the Complaint within ninety (90) days. Order (Doc. 4). The 

Case 2:13-cv-00410-MEF-WC Document 15 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 4
2 

Commissioner complied, filing her Answer on September 16, 2013. Thus, according to 

this court’s Order of June 17, 2013, Plaintiff’s brief in support of his claims was due on 

or before October 26, 2013. See Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff failed to file his brief. Accordingly, 

on April 17, 2014, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to “on or before May 1, 2014, show 

cause as to why his brief was not filed and why this case should not be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and abandonment of claims.” Order (Doc. 11). Plaintiff was 

“warned that failure abide by this order will likely result in the dismissal of this 

action.” Id. (emphasis in original). Despite a return receipt card indicating that Plaintiff 

received the April 17, 2014 Order, see Receipt (Doc. 12), Plaintiff has failed to show 

cause. 

 A brief outlining Plaintiff’s claims is necessary in this case. The only statements 

in the Complaint in support of Plaintiff’s contention that the Commissioner’s decision to 

deny benefits was erroneous are as follows: 

“I’m over mecated [sic] have to sleep a lot, I stand my feet swell, anxiety, I 

black out in the heat[,] I don[’]t have a drivers licens [sic] anymore from 

blacking out & crashing my truck twice from the heat. Chest pain from 

simple activity. Shortness of breth [sic].” 

Comp. (Doc. 1) at 2. This is merely a list of ailments from which Plaintiff presumably 

suffers, but the statements are not sufficient to set forth any argument regarding any error 

in the administrative process that denied Plaintiff benefits. 

 Considering the time that has expired since the filing of the Complaint and the 

orders and warnings issued by the court, it is clear that Plaintiff has no intention of 

Case 2:13-cv-00410-MEF-WC Document 15 Filed 06/16/14 Page 2 of 4
3 

prosecuting this action and has abandoned his claims. 

III. CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the 

Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and abandonment 

of claims. It is further 

 ORDERED that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before June 30, 2014. Any objections filed must specifically 

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff 

objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District 

Court. Plaintiff is advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, 

therefore, it is not appealable. 

 Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in 

the Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the 

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on 

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except 

upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 

(5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as 

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981). 

Case 2:13-cv-00410-MEF-WC Document 15 Filed 06/16/14 Page 3 of 4
4 

 Done this 16th day of June, 2014. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 2:13-cv-00410-MEF-WC Document 15 Filed 06/16/14 Page 4 of 4