IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

Alice T. Mosely, :

 Plaintiff, :

 v. : Case No. 2:12-CV-836 

 : JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

Commissioner of MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

Social Security, :

 

 Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 This is a social security case. On September 25, 2012, the

Court directed plaintiff to file a statement of errors

within 30 days after the administrative record was filed.

Plaintiff's brief was due on January 13, 2013. On January 24,

2013, this Court noted that no statement of errors had been

filed, and ordered plaintiff to file a statement of errors within

21 days or face dismissal of this action without prejudice for

failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not responded to that order.

I. 

If the plaintiff fails properly to prosecute an action,

it can be dismissed either pursuant to the Court's inherent

power to control its docket, or involuntarily under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b). Link v. Wasbash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962);

Boudwin v. Graystone Insurance Co., 756 F.2d 399 (5th Cir.

1985). Dismissal for failure to prosecute can occur where,

for example, a plaintiff fails to respond to an order

directing that he file a brief. Dynes v. Army Air Force

Exchange Service, 720 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1983).

Ordinarily, some notice of the court's intention to dismiss

for failure to prosecute is required, see Harris v.

Callwood, No. 86-4001 (6th Cir. April 21, 1988), but that

Case: 2:12-cv-00836-GLF-TPK Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/28/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
requirement is met if the Court affords a plaintiff a

reasonable period of time to comply with orders before the

dismissal occurs. Sepia Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Toledo,

462 F.2d 1315 (6th Cir. 1972)(per curiam). Such a dismissal

is also appropriate for failure to respond to a summary

judgment motion. See Stanley v. Continental Oil Co., 536

F.2d 914 (10th Cir. 1976); see also Lang v. Wyrick, 590 F.2d

257 (8th Cir. 1978).

II.

 The facts of this case indicate a clear failure to

prosecute. The Court specifically advised plaintiff in two

prior orders of the date by which a statement of errors was due,

and the last order advised that this action would be dismissed if

plaintiff failed to respond. Because none of those orders was

returned as undeliverable, the Court assumes that plaintiff

received them. Plaintiff has not offered any explanation for the

failure to respond. Therefore, the Court can only conclude that

the failure is intentional. An intentional failure to respond to

a court order is sufficient justification for a dismissal.

III.

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that this

action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

 If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file

and serve on all parties written objections to those specific

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,

together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00836-GLF-TPK Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/28/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,

may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the

right to have the district judge review the Report and

Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the

right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the

Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00836-GLF-TPK Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/28/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>