1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JARED REED, 

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-12837 

vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LINDA V. PARKER 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

___________________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Jared Reed seeks judicial review of Defendant the Commissioner of Social 

Security’s determination that he is not entitled to Social Security benefits for his physical and 

mental impairments under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Docket no. 1.) The matter has been referred to 

the undersigned for all pretrial purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Docket no. 2.) 

I. Recommendation 

For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that this matter be 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local Rule 41.2 and 

for failure to comply with the Court’s January 12, 2016 Order. 

II. Discussion 

On May 20, 2015, this matter was transferred, pursuant to Administrative Order 

15-AO-033, to a three-judge panel for consideration of a global stay and an inquiry into Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s representation. The matter was stayed as part of a global stay on June 9, 2015. 

(Docket no. 13.) 

4:14-cv-12837-LVP-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 350
2 

On October 10, 2015, pursuant to Administrative Order 15-AO-045, the matter was 

transferred back to the original District Judge. On October 14, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s 

counsel to send a letter to Plaintiff that would (i) advise that the firm would no longer represent 

Plaintiff; (ii) advise that Plaintiff would have 60 days to obtain new counsel or Plaintiff would be 

deemed to be proceeding pro se; (iii) set forth the names of three independent lawyers whom 

Plaintiff could retain if desired; and (iv) provide information regarding return or transfer of files. 

On November 24, 2015, the Court lifted the stay in this matter. (Docket no. 14.) On 

January 12, 2016, noting that new counsel had not appeared on Plaintiff’s behalf in this matter, and 

in accordance with the Court’s determination and the letter described above, the Court terminated 

the appearance of Attorney James Smith and the Law Firm of Davidson, Breen, Doud, Steele & 

Ferguson, P.C, noted that Plaintiff would proceed pro se in this matter, and struck the then-existing 

Motions for Summary Judgment that had been filed in this matter (docket nos. 9 and 11). (Docket 

no. 16.) The Court also ordered the parties to file new Motions for Summary Judgment; 

Plaintiff’s Motion was to be filed no later than February 12, 2016. (Id.) 

Importantly, the Court warned Plaintiff that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a federal court 

may sua sponte dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or comply with an order. See also E.D. 

Mich. LR 41.2 (“[W]hen it appears that . . . the parties have taken no action for a reasonable time, 

the Court may, on its own motion after reasonable notice . . . enter an order dismissing . . . the case 

unless good cause is shown.”). Therefore, the Court informed Plaintiff that a failure to comply 

with its order and submit a timely Motion for Summary Judgment may result in a recommendation 

that this matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the Court’s 

Order. 

4:14-cv-12837-LVP-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 351
3 

 Plaintiff has not filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and the February 12, 2016 

deadline for doing so has passed. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the instant complaint 

be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the Court’s Order. 

REVIEW OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and 

Recommendation, but must act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided 

for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections 

constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard 

v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 

F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with 

specificity will not preserve all objections that a party might have to this Report and 

Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 

1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). 

Pursuant to Rule 72.1(d)(2) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Michigan, a copy of any objection must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. 

Within fourteen (14) days of service of any objecting party’s timely filed objections, the 

opposing party may file a response. The response shall be not more than five (5) pages in length 

unless by motion and order such page limit is extended by the Court. The response shall address 

specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue contained within the objections. 

Dated: February 17, 2016 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

 MONA K. MAJZOUB 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4:14-cv-12837-LVP-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 352
4 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of this Report and Recommendation was served on Plaintiff 

and on counsel of record on this date. 

Dated: February 17, 2016 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager 

4:14-cv-12837-LVP-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 353