Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00139/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00139-0/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 motion, Plaintiff’s former counsel sought to withdraw from

representation of Plaintiff because of lack of cooperation. (Doc. 4) 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAOUL ABRAMS, *

*

Plaintiff, *

 * 

vs. * CIVIL ACTION No. 08-0139-CG-B

 *

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, *

 *

Defendant. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1382( c) and 42

U.S.C. § 405(q), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security. This action was referred to the

undersigned for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B).

Plaintiff Raoul Abrams filed, on March 11, 2008, his complaint

along with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and

Costs. (Docs. 1, 2). The Court entered an Order on April 17,

2008, which noted that Plaintiff had provided insufficient

information to support his motion, and directed Plaintiff to file

an amended motion by May 1, 2008. (Doc. 3) Plaintiff was expressly

directed to provide specific detail of how he is providing for

basic necessities such as shelter, utilities and clothing. (Id. at

3). Subsequent thereto, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion to

Withdraw (Doc. 4), which was granted on May 19, 2008 (Doc. 9)1

. 

Case 1:08-cv-00139-CG-B Document 10 Filed 06/10/08 Page 1 of 5
According to counsel, Plaintiff failed to respond to her

communications requesting information so that she could supplement his

Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, as directed by

the Court.

2

In addition to allowing Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw from

representation, Plaintiff was granted leave until June 2, 2008 to

retain new counsel or advise the Court of his intent to proceed pro

se. Plaintiff was further granted leave to file the amended motion

to proceed without prepayment of fees by June 2, 2008. (Id.) A

copy of the Court’s Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his last known

address via certified mail and regular mail. While the United

States Postal Service’s website reflects that the copy of the May

19, 2008 Order sent to Plaintiff, via certified mail, has not been

claimed, the Order sent to Plaintiff via regular mail has not been

returned to the Court. 

Given that Plaintiff failed to respond to his former counsel’s

communications, and has further failed to comply with the Court’s

Order dated May 19, 2008, it appears that he has abandoned the

prosecution of this action. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s

lack of prosecution, and the alternatives that are available to the

Court, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with

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

Case 1:08-cv-00139-CG-B Document 10 Filed 06/10/08 Page 2 of 5
3

Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454,

1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989),

cert. denied, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct.

1145, 107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); 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) (federal courts’ inherent power to

manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of

attorney’s fees and related expenses as a sanction).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 10th day of June, 2008.

 /s/ Sonja F. Bivins 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00139-CG-B Document 10 Filed 06/10/08 Page 3 of 5
4

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten 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)©); 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

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten 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 1:08-cv-00139-CG-B Document 10 Filed 06/10/08 Page 4 of 5
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.

Case 1:08-cv-00139-CG-B Document 10 Filed 06/10/08 Page 5 of 5