From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Webb v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION
Oct 13, 2011
2:10-CV-207 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2011)

Opinion

2:10-CV-207

10-13-2011

RHONDA WEBB, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

On August 31, 2010, plaintiff filed with this Court a complaint against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration based on the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. On February 28, 2011, this Court issued a Scheduling Order ordering the plaintiff's brief due in thirty days, which would have made the brief due on March 30, 2011. Plaintiff did not file his brief or a motion for a time extension before this deadline. As of this date, the Court has not received plaintiff's brief. Consequently, the Court recommends the pending complaint be DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

CLINTON E. AVERITTE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the "entered" date directly above the signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the "entered" date. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled "Objections to the Report and Recommendation." Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party's failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge in this report and accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).


Summaries of

Webb v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION
Oct 13, 2011
2:10-CV-207 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2011)
Case details for

Webb v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:RHONDA WEBB, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION

Date published: Oct 13, 2011

Citations

2:10-CV-207 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2011)