UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Plaintiff Anett Brinkley filed a pro se Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking 

review of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits 

and supplemental social security income. (Dkt. 1.) Now before the Court is Magistrate Judge 

Anthony Patti’s Report and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 

prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Eastern District of Michigan Local 

Rule 41.2. (Dkt. 14.) For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report and 

Recommendation and dismisses the Complaint. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Brinkley applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security 

income based on her arthritis, with an alleged onset date of April 9, 2010. (Tr. at 165, 172.) After 

a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an opinion finding that Brinkley was not 

disabled. (Tr. at 12.) More specifically, in applying the relevant five-part test, the ALJ found that 

(1) Brinkley had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date; (2) 

Brinkley had the severe impairment of arthritis, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 416.920(c); (3) 

ANETT BRINKLEY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 14-13560 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [14] 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 15 Filed 04/13/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 380
2 

Brinkley’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the severity of any listed impairment in 

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) Brinkley had the residual functional capacity to 

perform the full range of light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b); 416.967(b); and (5) 

Brinkley was capable of performing past relevant work as a substitute teacher. (Tr. at 13–19.) 

Based on these findings, the ALJ denied benefits. (Tr. at 19.) After the Appeals Council denied 

review, Brinkley filed this suit. The case was referred for all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge 

Patricia T. Morris. 

After the Commissioner filed an Answer and a certified copy of the Transcript of the 

Social Security proceedings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Scheduling Order. (Dkt. 11.) 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was due on December 22, 2014, and Defendant’s was 

due on January 22, 2015. (Id.) On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff having failed to file her motion, the 

Magistrate Judge issued a Show Cause Order requiring Plaintiff to file it by January 23, 2015. 

(Dkt. 12.) The Magistrate Judge cautioned Plaintiff that “[i]n the event that Plaintiff fails to file 

any further documents, the Court will issue a Report and Recommendation that the case be 

dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and E.D. Mich. LR 41.2.” (Id. at 1–2.) Shortly thereafter, the case was 

reassigned from Magistrate Judge Morris to Magistrate Judge Patti. (Dkt. 13.) Plaintiff did not 

file her motion. The Commissioner also did not file a Motion for Summary Judgment. 

The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s 

Complaint for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and E.D. Mich. 

LR 41.2. (Dkt. 14.) At the conclusion of the Report, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties 

that either could seek review of the Report by filing objections within fourteen days of service. 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 15 Filed 04/13/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 381
3 

(Report at 4.) Neither party filed objections, the time to do so has expired, and the matter is now 

ready for disposition. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a Court to enter involuntary dismissal “[i]f 

the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Although the rule 

contemplates dismissal on motion of a defendant, federal courts have the inherent power to act 

sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

629–32 (1962). Dismissal for failure to prosecute “is a harsh sanction which the court should 

order only in extreme situations showing a clear record of contumacious conduct by the 

plaintiff.” Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The Sixth Circuit has outlined the following factors in reviewing a dismissal for failure 

to prosecute: 

(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. 

Id. (citing Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir.1999)). Where, as here, the 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court considers that such a litigant “may be entitled to some 

latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal 

training, [but] there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural 

requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 

108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Salmo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 11-14926, 2012 WL 

6929176, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 27, 2012) (“‘[T]he Court must take into consideration the 

difficulties an individual faces in bringing forward their case without the benefit of legal 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 15 Filed 04/13/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 382
4 

representation.’ . . . [but] pro se litigants are not to be accorded any special consideration when 

they fail to adhere to readily comprehended court deadlines.’” (internal citations omitted)), 

report and recommendation adopted, No. 11-14926, 2013 WL 273205 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 

2013). 

As noted in Salmo, courts within this District have dismissed Social Security complaints 

under Rule 41(b) where the plaintiff “has neither filed a summary judgment motion nor 

responded to a show cause order. Id. at *3 (citing cases). Here, Plaintiff failed to comply with the 

Court-issued scheduling order and did not respond to the Magistrate Judge’s Show Cause Order, 

which warned Plaintiff of the effect of failure to respond. In these circumstances, the Court 

agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this case should be dismissed for failure 

to prosecute. 

In adopting the Report and Recommendation to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Court 

recognizes that “reasonable jurists may differ on [whether a pro se social security Complaint 

may be dismissed for want of prosecution], including judges in this District[.]” Crist v. Comm’r 

of Soc. Sec., No. 13-CV-14008, 2014 WL 2931412, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2014) (citation 

omitted). In Wright v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 09-15014, 2010 WL 5420990, at *3 (E.D. Mich. 

Dec. 27, 2010), for example, the court remanded the case for further administrative proceedings 

instead of dismissing for failure to prosecute, explaining that “proof of plaintiff’s disability is 

strong and evidence to the contrary is non-existent.” Wright, 2010 WL 5420990, at *9. The same 

cannot be said for this case. 

Given the Plaintiff’s pro se status, her filing of a complaint that sets forth her allegations, 

and the harshness of a dismissal for want of prosecution, the Court has “review[ed] the 

administrative record for obvious errors in order to ‘affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 15 Filed 04/13/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 383
5 

absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standard or has 

made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.’” Crist, 2014 WL 

2931412, at *2 (quoting Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005)). 

The Court finds that the ALJ made no such errors. In particular, the ALJ appropriately found that 

Plaintiff’s arthritis did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment and correctly determined 

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. 

As to the listed impairments, the ALJ considered Listing 1.02, Major Dysfunction of a 

Joint, and Listing 14.09, Inflammatory Arthritis. The medical records from two consulting and 

two treating physicians reflect that Brinkley had been diagnosed with arthritis in her thumbs, two 

fingers, and her cervical spine; had developed hammertoes; had thickened interphalangeal hand 

joints; experienced swelling in her hand joints and right ankle; and, lastly, experienced stiffness 

in her back. (See Tr. 33, 319, 328.) These ailments do not “result[] in inability to ambulate 

effectively” as required by Listing 1.02(A), or “in inability to perform fine and gross movements 

effectively,” as required by Listing 1.02(B). Nor do they rise to the level of severity required by 

the listing for inflammatory arthritis, Listing 14.09, which generally involves extreme limitation 

(such as inability to ambulate effectively) or multiple complications. And while the ALJ 

articulated many of these facts in portions of his opinion that did not directly address Step Three, 

this does not mean his Step Three findings are inadequate. See Bledsoe v. Barnhart, 165 F. 

App’x 408, 411 (6th Cir. 2006) (“The ALJ did not err by not spelling out every consideration 

that went into the step three determination. . . . The ALJ described evidence pertaining to all 

impairments, both severe and non-severe, for five pages earlier in his opinion and made factual 

findings. The ALJ explicitly stated that he considered the combination of all impairments even 

though he did not spell out every fact a second time under the step three analysis.”). 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 15 Filed 04/13/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 384
6 

As to Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s testimony at 

the hearing, reports from her consulting and treating physicians, treatment history, and reports 

from the Plaintiff’s sister. The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the “intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects” of her systems were “not entirely credible[.]” (Tr. at 16.) This 

conclusion was appropriate given his finding of “significant inconsistencies” between Plaintiff’s 

claims of complete disability and the “weight of the medical evidence,” which included findings 

regarding Plaintiff’s mobility, and Plaintiff’s own self-reported daily activities, which included 

household chores, grocery shopping, and reading to neighborhood children. (Tr. at 16–17.) The 

ALJ also noted that “there is no medical opinion of record by treating or examining practitioners 

to indicate that [Brinkley] was prevented from all work activity or more limited than assessed 

above.” (Tr. at 18.) 

This case is similar to Salmo in that “it cannot be said that the evidence supporting the 

ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff is not disabled is ‘non-existent.” See Salmo, 2012 WL 6929176 at *4. 

Over three months have passed since Plaintiff was ordered to file her motion for summary 

judgment and Plaintiff has taken no action, even after the Magistrate Judge issued a Show Cause 

Order notifying her of the consequences. Nor did she raise any objections to the recommended 

dismissal. In these circumstances, the Court finds that dismissal is appropriate. 

III.CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 

(Dkt. 14) and DISMISSES the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 13, 2015 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 15 Filed 04/13/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 385
7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys 

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on April 13, 2015. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:14-cv-13560-LJM-APP Doc # 15 Filed 04/13/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 386