1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ANETT BRINKLEY, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-13560 

v. District Judge Laurie J. Michelson 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s action 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Eastern District of Michigan 

Local Rule 41.2 for failure to prosecute. 

II. REPORT 

This matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and 

Recommendation on the Court’s January 9, 2015 Order to Show Cause Based on 

the Absence of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (DE 12.) 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 14 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 374
2 

 A. Background 

 On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Complaint and Application to 

Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (DE 1-3.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s 

Application on September 16, 2014. In November 2014, the Commissioner of 

Social Security filed an Answer and a certified copy of the Transcript of the Social 

Security Proceedings. (DE 8, 10.) Thereafter, the Court issued a Scheduling 

Order. (DE 11.) Pursuant to the Order, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

was due on December 22, 2014. 

 Because Plaintiff failed to timely file her Motion for Summary Judgment, on 

January 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge1

 issued a Show Cause Order. The 

Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff until January 23, 2015 to file her Motion for 

Summary Judgment. (DE 12.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply 

with the Show Cause Order would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 41.2 for failure to prosecute. To 

date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order. 

 B. Standard 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 41.2 authorize 

involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or to comply with rules of procedure 

                                                            

1

 This action was initially referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. 

Morris. (DE 3.) The case was reassigned to the Undersigned on January 13, 2015. 

(DE 13.) 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 14 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 375
3 

or court orders. See also Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991) (noting 

that “a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for 

failure to prosecute” as recognized in Link v. Walbash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-

32 (1962)). “This measure is available to the district court as a tool to effect 

management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the taxsupported courts and opposing parties.” Knoll v. AT&T, 176 F.3d 359, 63 (6th Cir. 

1999). 

 The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit directs district 

courts to consider the following factors in deciding whether to dismiss under Rule 

41(b): 

(1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; 

(2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s 

conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to 

cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic 

sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered. 

Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dept., 529 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir. 2008) 

(internal citations omitted). Although none of the factors is ‘“outcome dispositive, 

. . . a case is properly dismissed by the district court where there is a clear record of 

delay or contumacious conduct.’” Schafer, 529 F.3d at 737 (quoting Knoll, 176 

F.3d at 363). 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 14 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 376
4 

 C. Discussion 

 In the instant case, the record demonstrates such delay and contumacious 

conduct. After Plaintiff failed to file her Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court 

issued an Order to Show Cause, warning her that her failure to file any further 

documents by January 23, 2015 would result in a Report and Recommendation that 

the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) and E.D. Mich. LR 

41.2. The Order provided Plaintiff with adequate notice of the Court’s intention to 

dismiss for failure to prosecute and supplied her with a reasonable period of time 

to comply. Plaintiff did not file her Motion for Summary Judgment or otherwise 

respond to the Order in the time provided. Because Plaintiff has missed multiple 

deadlines and disregarded Court Orders, the Undersigned concludes that no 

alternative sanction would protect the integrity of the pretrial process. The 

Undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s 

action under Rule 41(b) and E.D. Mich. LR 41.2. 

III. PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

 The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and 

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, 

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 

72.1(d). 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 & 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 14 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 377
5 

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some 

issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a 

party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of 

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1273 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 

72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge. 

 Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” and “Objection No. 

2,” etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an 

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the 

objections in length and complexity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich LR 

72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, 

in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to 

Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without 

merit, it may rule without awaiting the response. 

Dated: February 4, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 14 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 378
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on February 4, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

(313) 234-5200 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 14 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 379