Quintini v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

Full title: GINA MARIE QUINTINI v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Sep 27, 2018

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-3445 SECTION: "I"(1) (E.D. La. Sep. 27, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-3445 SECTION: "I"(1)

09-27-2018

GINA MARIE QUINTINI v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JANIS VAN MEERVELD

JUDGE LANCE M. AFRICK REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 30, 2018. On July 10, 2018, the Court set this matter for its August 15, 2018, Call Docket because there was no evidence in the record that the defendant had been served.¹ The Court ordered that plaintiff "appear IN PERSON and report on the status of the case and show cause why service of the summons and complaint has not been completed and/or why this matter should not be dismissed." (Rec. Doc. 6). Plaintiff failed to appear on August 15, 2018. The Court reset the case for its September 26, 2019, Call Docket and again ordered the plaintiff to appear and show cause why service had not been completed and/or why the matter should not be dismissed. On September 26, 2018, the plaintiff once again failed to appear.

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires that the defendant be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed.

"[A] federal district court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss an action for want of prosecution, which it may exercise on its own motion when necessary to maintain the orderly administration of justice." Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 610 F.2d 241, 247 (5th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff's failure to serve the defendant and Plaintiff's failure to appear in court to explain her delay after being ordered to do so twice demonstrates a clear record of delay. Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

OBJECTIONS

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen (14) calendar days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5^th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of September, 2018.

/s/_________

Janis van Meerveld

United States Magistrate Judge