UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TERRY L. MCDANIEL, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 2:15-cv-12507 

District Judge Paul D. Borman 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 21) and 

SETTING EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

 Plaintiff, Terry L. McDaniel filed this complaint for judicial review of a 

social security decision on July 15, 2015. (DE 1.) Pursuant to this Court’s January 

5, 2016 scheduling order, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was originally 

due on January 19, 2016. (DE 15.)1

 Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time, 

which this Court granted, providing Plaintiff until April 25, 2016 by which to file a 

motion for summary judgment and/or a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

(DEs 17, 18.) On March 31, 2016, attorney Eva I. Guerra filed an appearance on 

Plaintiff’s behalf. (DE 19.) Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to extend was granted 

                                                            

1

 On February 11, 2016, the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss for failure to 

prosecute. (DE 16.) 

2:15-cv-12507-PDB-APP Doc # 25 Filed 08/23/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 690
2

by the Court, permitting Plaintiff until May 25, 2016 by which to file a motion for 

summary judgment. (DE 20.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 29, 2016 motion for summary 

judgment. (DE 21.)2

 However, the accompanying brief does not comply with the 

Undersigned’s social security practice guidelines. By way of background, “[a] 

brief supporting a motion or response must, at the beginning, contain a concise 

statement of the issues presented and, on the following page, the controlling or 

most appropriate authority for the relief sought. The brief may contain a table of 

contents, an index of authorities, and an index of exhibits attached to the brief.” 

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(2) (“Form of Required Briefs.”). Relatedly, my social 

security practice guidelines provide: 

Within the parties’ briefs, the issues presented should be labeled as 

section headings, and should match the items listed on the “Issues 

Presented” page. Any issue addressed in the brief that is not both 1) 

included in Issues Presented and 2) labeled as a section heading 

within the brief, will not be considered by the Court. 

See www.mied.uscourts.gov. Here, Plaintiff’s statement of the issues lists four (4) 

questions, while her argument section is limited to one (1) assertion. (Compare

DE 21 at 7-8, 21-33.) The Court will address this matter as follows: 

 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (DE 21) shall be 

STRICKEN from the Court’s docket as non-conforming. 

                                                            

2

 Plaintiff’s same-day ex parte motion for leave to file Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment instanter (DE 22) has been granted by the Court. 

2:15-cv-12507-PDB-APP Doc # 25 Filed 08/23/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 691
3

 No later than AUGUST 29, 2016, Plaintiff SHALL file a 

motion for summary judgment that conforms with E.D. Mich. 

LR 7.1 and my Practice Guidelines. 

 The deadlines imposed in response to the Commissioner’s 

motions to extend (DE 23, DE 24) are further EXTENDED. 

Defendant SHALL file its Response to Plaintiff's Motion 

together with a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on or 

before SEPTEMBER 29, 2016; and Plaintiff may file a reply 

on or before OCTOBER 10, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 23, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

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

on August 23, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-12507-PDB-APP Doc # 25 Filed 08/23/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 692