UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ROBIN HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-00240

District Judge Walter H. Rice

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS1

Plaintiff brings this case pro se 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 October 1, 2018. Plaintiff did not file a 

Statement of Errors as required by the Magistrate Judges’ Seventh Amended General 

Order No. 11. Consequently, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to Show Cause—not later than

December 21, 2018—why her Complaint should not be dismissed due to her failure to 

file a timely Statement of Errors as required by the Magistrate Judges’ Seventh Amended 

General Order No. 11. (Doc. #8). The Court also provided Plaintiff with an alternative 

opportunity to file a Statement of Errors by December 21, 2018. Id.

On January 24, 2019, the case was stayed due to lapse of congressional 

appropriations. See General Order 18-02 (available at http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov

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

search: “General Orders” then “District”). The Court lifted the stay on March 25, 2019 

and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 

file a timely Statement of Errors and for failure to prosecute. The Court also provided 

Plaintiff with the alternative to file her Statement of Errors. Plaintiff’s response to the 

Order to Show Cause, or Statement of Errors, was due by April 15, 2019. Plaintiff has 

not responded to the Order to Show Cause or filed a Statement of Errors.

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 taking any action in this case 

since filing her Complaint. The main 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 

her 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.

April 17, 2019 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. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), 

this period is extended to SEVENTEEN days if this Report is being served by one of the 

methods of service listed in “Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) (mail), (D) (leaving with the 

clerk), or (F) (other means consented to) ....” 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).