Opinion
Civil No.: 3:13-cv-02019-JE
04-16-2015
BRUCE TRIMBLE, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Bruce Trimble 13931 SE Center Street Portland, OR 97236 Plaintiff Pro Se S. Amanda Marshall, U.S. Attorney Adrian L. Brown, Asst. U.S. Attorney 1000 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Attorneys for Defendants
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Bruce Trimble
13931 SE Center Street
Portland, OR 97236
Plaintiff Pro Se S. Amanda Marshall, U.S. Attorney
Adrian L. Brown, Asst. U.S. Attorney
1000 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204
Attorneys for Defendants JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Bruce Trimble brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) denying his application for Social Security benefits. For the reasons set out below, the action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Background
On November 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action pro se, seeking an Order reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding the action to the Social Security Administration (the Agency) for an award of benefits or, in the alternative, for further proceedings. Plaintiff also filed an Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, which this Court approved.
On November 18, 2013, the Court issued and the Clerk's office mailed to Plaintiff a Social Security Procedural Order and Notice of Case Assignment.
The Court received no further submissions from Plaintiff and on January 8, 2015, issued an Order to Show Cause in writing by February 6, 2015 why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff has not submitted anything in writing or otherwise explained to the Court why he has stopped prosecuting this case. Accordingly, I recommend that this case be dismissed.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this action should be DISMISSED without prejudice.
Scheduling Order
This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due May 4, 2015. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.
DATED this 16th day of April, 2015.
/s/ John Jelderks
John Jelderks
U.S. Magistrate Judge