Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02804/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02804-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jeffrey Kent Lucas
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY KENT LUCAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2804 AC 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his application for a period of 

disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. ECF 

No. 1. Defendant Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that plaintiff’s complaint is 

barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ECF No. 13. 

 The court ordered plaintiff to file an opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, no later 

than May 7, 2015. ECF No. 14. The time for plaintiff’s response expired, but he did not oppose 

the motion to dismiss, nor otherwise respond to the court’s order. The court then ordered plaintiff 

to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. ECF No. 15. The 

time for plaintiff’s response has expired, but he has not responded to the court’s order. 

/// 

Case 2:14-cv-02804-KJM-AC Document 16 Filed 08/04/15 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 

27 

28 

2

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 

district judge to this matter. 

 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

 This action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s 

orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. R. 110. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all 

parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 4, 2015 

 

Case 2:14-cv-02804-KJM-AC Document 16 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 2