Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00412/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00412-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charriotte Anderson
Defendant
Constance Anderson
Plaintiff
Social Security Administration
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

CONSTANCE ANDERSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:10cv412-MHT

) (WO) 

SOCIAL SECURITY )

ADMINISTRATION and )

CHARRIOTTE ANDERSON, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

This lawsuit is now before the court on the

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that

the plaintiff’s case be dismissed. Also before the court

are the plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation.

After an independent and de novo review of the record,

the court concludes that the plaintiff’s objections

should be overruled and the magistrate judge’s

recommendation adopted.

The court adds this brief comment: This lawsuit was

removed from state to federal court pursuant to 28

Case 2:10-cv-00412-MHT-CSC Document 11 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 4
2

U.S.C.A. §§ 1441 & 1442(a)(1) because the plaintiff had

named a federal agency, the Social Security

Administration, as a defendant. The magistrate judge set

this matter down for a conference because he could not

discern from the plaintiff’s complaint the exact nature

of her complaint against the Social Security

Administration. The magistrate judge believed that a

face-to-face meeting might provide the plaintiff with the

opportunity to say in person what she had been unable to

convey in writing. The plaintiff, however, failed to

appear or otherwise give this litigation any attention.

As the magistrate judge explained:

“On May 14, 2010, this matter was set

for a status and scheduling conference

on June 1, 2010. However, the plaintiff

failed to appear at the appointed time

and place, nor did an attorney appear on

her behalf. On June 1, 2010, the court

issued an order directing the plaintiff

on or before June 15, 2010, to show

cause why this case should not be

dismissed for want of prosecution. (Doc.

#5). The plaintiff was specifically

cautioned that if she failed to respond

as required by the order, the court

would treat her failure to respond as an

Case 2:10-cv-00412-MHT-CSC Document 11 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 4
3

abandonment of the claims set forth in

the complaint and as a failure to

prosecute this action and the

undersigned would recommend that this

case be dismissed for such failure. The

plaintiff has filed nothing in response

to the orders of the court. The court

therefore concludes that this case is

due to be dismissed.”

The magistrate judge then entered a recommendation that

“this case be dismissed for the plaintiff’s abandonment

of her claims, failure to prosecute this action and

failure to comply with the orders of the court.”

After entry of the recommendation, the plaintiff then

filed a response that essentially repeated the incoherent

ramblings in her complaint and that failed completely to

address the basis for the magistrate judge’s

recommendation: that she had failed to prosecute this

action and to comply with the orders of the court. This

court, to put it simply, cannot provide a forum for the

litigation of the plaintiff’s complaint if the plaintiff

is unwilling (without explanation or justification) to

cooperate in processing her complaint. The court,

Case 2:10-cv-00412-MHT-CSC Document 11 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 4
therefore, agrees with the magistrate judge that this

case must be dismissed, albeit without prejudice. 

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 23rd day of July, 2010.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00412-MHT-CSC Document 11 Filed 07/23/10 Page 4 of 4