UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

HOWARD L. TOMS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-169

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, District Judge Walter H. Rice

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

This is a Social Security disability appeal filed by pro se Plaintiff. The Commissioner 

appeared in the case by filing the Administrative Record on August 3, 2018. Pro se Plaintiff was 

required to file his Statement of Errors within 48 days after service of the Administrative Record. 

See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 8.1(b) (requiring that the Statement of Errors be filed within 45 days after 

service of the administrative record); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (permitting an additional 3 days 

to act when served by regular mail). 

When pro se Plaintiff failed to file his Statement of Errors within the required time, the 

Court, acting sua sponte, issued a Show Cause Order directing him to show cause or to otherwise 

file the Statement of Errors within 14 days, i.e., on or before October 9, 2018. See doc. 10. Plaintiff 

was also notified that his failure to comply with the terms of the Show Cause Order could result 

in the dismissal of his Social Security disability appeal for failure to prosecute. See id. Despite 

the foregoing, Plaintiff failed to show cause or otherwise file his Statement of Errors as ordered 

 

1 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.
and the time for doing so has expired. Therefore, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case 

be DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 11, 2018 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
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 Recommendation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to 

SEVENTEEN days because this Report and Recommendation is being served by one of the 

methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), and may be extended further 

by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the 

Report and Recommendation 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. As 

is made clear above, this period is likewise extended to SEVENTEEN days if service of the 

objections is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Failure to make 

objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).1