Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00652/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00652-0/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 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

BRANDI NICOLE JOSEPH, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:13-cv-652-WKW 

 ) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Plaintiff, Brandi Nicole Joseph, filed her complaint with this court on September 

13, 2013, based on the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under 

Title II of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. On July 11, 2014, 

the District Judge entered an Order referring this case to the undersigned magistrate judge 

for “further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate.” 

Order (Doc. 19). 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 September 17, 2013, the undersigned entered an Order requiring the 

Commissioner to file her answer to the complaint within ninety (90) days. Order (Doc. 

Case 3:13-cv-00652-WKW-WC Document 20 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 4
2 

3). The Commissioner complied, filing her Answer on December 18, 2013. Thus, 

according to this court’s Order of September 17, 2013, Plaintiff’s brief in support of her 

claims was due on or before January 27, 2014. See Id. at 2. Plaintiff failed to file her 

brief. Accordingly, on May 22, 2014, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to “on or before 

June 5, 2014, show cause as to why h[er] brief was not filed and why this case should not 

be dismissed for failure to prosecute and abandonment of claims.” Order (Doc. 12). 

Plaintiff filed a response to the court’s order in which Plaintiff stated that she had been 

unable to retain an attorney and that she “was not aware that [she] needed to file a 

‘brief.’” (Doc. 13) at 1. Plaintiff’s response gave no indication that Plaintiff would be 

submitting a brief in support of her claims in this case. The court ordered a status 

conference to be held to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to verbalize her claims. In the 

order setting the hearing, Plaintiff was “warned that if she fails to attend the hearing, 

the court will have no choice but to recommend this case be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute and abandonment of claims.” Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiff failed to 

attend the hearing. 

 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 disagree with the action of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision 

because she did not review and consider medical records from January 11, 

2009, Tallahassee Memorial Medical Center (Behavior Health Center). 

The judge did not have these records on file from the January 2012 hearing 

and I asked her to not go forward with the hearing until she received and 

reviewed these records. In her final decision, there is not evidence of 

Case 3:13-cv-00652-WKW-WC Document 20 Filed 07/14/14 Page 2 of 4
3 

review of these records. I was hospitalized for 2 weeks in January 2009. I 

have recently been hospitalized in Montgomery, AL for 3 weeks with the 

same problems. 

Comp. (Doc. 1) at 2. In a Motion to Amend the Complaint, Plaintiff explained, 

At a “hearing” scheduled in January, 2012, I asked the Hearing Judge to 

reschedule my “hearing” because she stated that the []only medical records 

that the Social Security Office only had in their present records from Dr. 

Clemment of Montgomery, AL. Dr. Clemment refused to share my records 

with me and I only saw him once or twice because I usually met with a 

therapist when I visited his office for a short time in 2009. The Judge said 

she would reschedule the hearing in May 2012. The hearing was actually 

held in August, 2012, and based on the Judge’s September 2012 

correspondence shed did not consider my []medical records when I was 

admitted to the hospital on January 12, 2009 for two weeks. 

(Doc. 9) at 1-2. These statements are not sufficient to set forth any error in the 

administrative process that denied Plaintiff benefits. Without more, the court can only 

speculate as to what Plaintiff’s complaints may be as Plaintiff does not indicate whether 

she ever provided the additional records to the ALJ or to the appeals counsel. Despite the 

extended time allowed for Plaintiff to file a brief and the opportunity for Plaintiff to raise 

her arguments verbally at a hearing, Plaintiff has failed to articulate her claims. 

 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 

prosecuting this action and has abandoned her 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 

Case 3:13-cv-00652-WKW-WC Document 20 Filed 07/14/14 Page 3 of 4
4 

of claims. It is further 

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before July 28, 2014. Any objections filed must specifically 

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is 

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

District Court. The parties are 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. 

Done this 14th day of July, 2014. 

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:13-cv-00652-WKW-WC Document 20 Filed 07/14/14 Page 4 of 4