UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

STEVEN B. COBLE,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-00112

District Judge Walter Rice

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS1

On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint in this Court seeking judicial review 

of a final decision issued by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The 

Commissioner filed a certified copy of the administrative record on July 3, 2018. Plaintiff has 

taken no action in this case since filing his Complaint. He has also not filed a Statement of 

Errors—as required by the Magistrate Judges’ Seventh Amended General Order No. 11—in 

response to the Commissioner’s filing of the administrative record. Consequently, the Court 

Ordered Plaintiff to Show Cause—not later than October 18, 2018—why his Complaint should 

not be dismissed due to his failure to prosecute and due to his failure to file a Statement of Errors 

as required by the Magistrate Judges’ Seventh Amended General Order No. 11. (Doc. #9). The 

Court also provided Plaintiff with an alternative opportunity to file a Statement of Errors by 

October 18, 2018. Id. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

 1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendations.
2

The Court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in a clear pattern of delay by not filing a 

Statement of Errors, by not responding to the Order to Show Cause, and by not otherwise 

participating in this case after filing his Complaint. One effect of Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with the Court’s Order to Show cause is that the record is void of an explanation by Plaintiff for 

his failure to file a Statement of Errors. Absent such an explanation, and in light of the above 

circumstances, Plaintiff’s clear pattern of delay warrants dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 

(1962); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Harris v. Callwood, 844 

F.2d 1254, 1256 (6th Cir. 1988).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b); and

2. The case be terminated on the docket of this Court.

October 22, 2018 s/Sharon L. Ovington

Sharon L. Ovington

United States Magistrate Judge
3

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after 

being served with this Report and Recommendations. Such objections shall specify the 

portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in 

support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part 

upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly 

arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree 

upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge 

otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 

FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof. 

Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on 

appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 

949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).