UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Jerome R. Wilson,

Plaintiff,

Case Number: 1:18-cv-00436

vs. 

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Andrew Saul,1

Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s February 26, 2019 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the case be dismissed with 

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Doc. 12).

When objections are received to a magistrate judge’s R&R on a dispositive matter, 

the district judge “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition 

that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district 

judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The parties received proper notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including 

notice that they would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the R&R in a 

 1 Andrew Saul became the Commissioner of Social Security on June 17, 2019 and, consequently, is 

automatically substituted as a party in this matter. See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d); see also Section 205(g) of the 

Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
2

timely manner, United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981), and objections 

were due by March 12, 2019. Plaintiff submitting a filing on March 11, 2019, which 

appears to be addressed to both the Court and Defendant. The Court will construe his 

March 11, 2019 filing as an objection to the February 26, 2019 R&R. Cf. Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (holding that the objections of a petitioner appearing pro 

se will be construed liberally).

The Magistrate Judge completed a comprehensive review of the record and the 

same will not be repeated here except to the extent necessary to address Plaintiff’s 

objections. In short, Plaintiff has failed to comply with two Court Orders directing him to 

file his Statement of Errors pursuant to Local Civil Rule 8.1(b). (Docs. 10, 11); see Ohio 

Civ. R. P. 8.1(b) (“Within forty-five days after service of the administrative record, the 

plaintiff must file and serve a statement of errors setting forth the bases upon which the 

plaintiff seeks reversal or remand.”). In his objection, he alleges that he does not 

understand what he needs to submit, he was told in December 2018 that he did not have 

to do anything, and that his medical condition has worsened since 2010. (Doc. 13). He 

requests that, if the Court or Defendant need any more information, to please let him 

know. (Id.).

A review of the record in this matter confirms that the Court gave Plaintiff more 

than one opportunity, and more than 128 days, to file his Statement of Errors and he did 

not file it. (Docs. 8, 10, 11). Although Plaintiff asserts that he does not understand what 

he must file and that he was told that he did not have to do anything, the record plainly 

contradicts his assertions; the Court made clear that he was required to file his Statement 

of Errors before November 29, 2018. (Doc. 10, 11). Moreover, Plaintiff has not filed a 
3

change of address notification with the Court, and the address on the envelope that 

contained his objections matches his address listed on the docket, so the Court is not 

convinced that Plaintiff did not receive the prior Orders. Although sympathetic that 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, the Court cannot excuse his failure to respond 

to two Court Orders or to file his Statement of Errors. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 

108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when 

dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there 

is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a 

layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.”).

Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the February 26, 2019 R&R (Doc. 12) 

and it is hereby ORDERED that and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice and this 

matter is CLOSED and TERMINATED from the active docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/ Michael R. Barrett______

Michael R. Barrett, Judge

United States District Court