VANDERSLICE v. BERRYHILL

Case No. 3:16-CV-05792-RSL-DWC.

WILLIAM ALLEN VANDERSLICE, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Nature of Suit: 864 Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William Allen Vanderslice, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Nancy A Berryhill, Defendant, represented by Kerry Jane Keefe , US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE & Terrye Erin Shea , SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Noting: March 24, 2017

DAVID W. CHRISTEL, Magistrate Judge.

The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff William Allen Vanderslice, proceeding pro se, filed this action on September 16, 2016. Dkt. 1. On December 6, 2016, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. Dkt. 10. The Court issued a Scheduling Order ordering Plaintiff to file an opening brief by January 3, 2017. Dkt. 11. The Court issued an Amended Scheduling order on January 4, 2017, ordering Plaintiff to file an opening brief by February 2, 2017.1 Dkt. 12. Plaintiff failed to file an opening brief by February 2, 2017. The Court then entered an Order to Show Cause on February 15, 2017, directing Plaintiff to file an opening brief by February 24, 2017. Dkt. 13. The Court warned Plaintiff it would recommend dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute if Plaintiff failed to file an opening brief by February 24, 2017.

Plaintiff has not filed an opening brief or otherwise responded to the Court's February 15, 2017 Order. As Plaintiff has failed to file an opening brief and prosecute this case, the undersigned recommends the Court dismiss this case without prejudice.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on March 24, 2017, as noted in the caption.

FootNotes


1. The Court issued its Amended Scheduling Order due to the fact the original Scheduling Order was inadvertently not mailed to Plaintiff. The Amended Scheduling Order, however, was mailed to Plaintiff's address of record.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases