UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

JEROME R. WILSON, Case No. 1:18-cv-436 

 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. 

 v. Bowman, M.J. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 On June 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint seeking to appeal a decision of 

the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act. On October 16, 2018, 

the undersigned filed an Order that reminded Plaintiff of his obligation to comply with 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure, including filing deadlines applicable to this social security 

case. In its Order, the Court clearly and unambiguously directed Plaintiff to file a 

“Statement of Errors” that sets forth the reasons or bases upon which the plaintiff seeks 

reversal or remand of the denial of social security benefits. (Doc. 10 at 2, citing Local 

Rule 8.1(a)). Plaintiff was directed to file his Statement of Errors “on or before November 

29, 2018.” (Id., emphasis original). 

 Plaintiff failed to file his Statement of Errors as required by Local Rule 8.1(a), and 

failed to comply with the clear Order of this Court directing him to do so on or before 

November 29, 2018. Plaintiff previously was cautioned that a failure to timely file his 

Statement of Errors “may lead to a recommended dismissal...for failure to prosecute.” 

(Doc. 10 at 2). Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to timely file his Statement of Errors as 

directed. 

Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss any 

Case: 1:18-cv-00436-MRB-SKB Doc #: 12 Filed: 02/26/19 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 3232
2 

case for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with the rules or order of the 

court....” Unless the court orders otherwise, a dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant 

to Rule 41(b) is an adjudication on the merits that is to be given preclusive effect, barring 

subsequent actions based on the same allegations. See Bragg v. Flint Bd of Educ., 570 

F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 2009). 

 On January 28, 2019, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause, providing Plaintiff 

with one final opportunity to file his long-overdue Statement of Errors. (Doc. 11). The 

Order directed Plaintiff to “SHOW CAUSE, in writing why his appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of prosecution” on or before February 20, 2019. (Id. at ¶1, emphasis 

original). The same Order specifically warned Plaintiff that his “failure to timely comply 

with this Order will result in the filing of a Report and Recommendation that this case 

should be dismissed based upon a failure to prosecute.” (Id. at ¶2, emphasis original). 

 Once again, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order. Plaintiff has now 

failed to comply with two Orders of this Court directing him to file his Statement of Errors 

in addition to failing to comply with Rule 8.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The 

Court’s most recent order warned Plaintiff that his continued failure to comply would result 

in dismissal of his case. 

 Accordingly, IT IS NOW RECOMMENDED THAT this case be DISMISSED with 

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based upon 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

 s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:18-cv-00436-MRB-SKB Doc #: 12 Filed: 02/26/19 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 3233
3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

JEROME R. WILSON, Case No. 1:18-cv-436 

 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. 

 v. Bowman, M.J. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

NOTICE 

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

objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of 

the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely 

motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of 

the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of 

the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN (14) 

DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. 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 (6th Cir. 1981). 

Case: 1:18-cv-00436-MRB-SKB Doc #: 12 Filed: 02/26/19 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 3234