Milin v. Astrue

Full title: JANICE LE MILIN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

Date published: Feb 22, 2008

Case No.: 3:07cv460/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2008)

Opinion

Case No.: 3:07cv460/RV/EMT.

February 22, 2008

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELIZABETH TIMOTHY, Magistrate Judge

This action was initiated by Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, on October 29, 2007, apparently under the Social Security Act and seeking judicial review of Defendant's decision denying her claim for benefits (see Doc. 1). On November 30, 2007, this court entered an order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint (Doc. 5). Thereafter, an extension of time to file the amended complaint, to January 21, 2008, was granted (Doc. 7). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as directed; therefore, on January 30, 2008, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty (20) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 8). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed with no response from Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within ten days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only . A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).