CAMACHO
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to prosecute his case and did not show cause why it should not be dismissed.
The plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered to file summonses and identify parties. Almost two years later, the plaintiff…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record and Raul Camacho, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security.
On June 20, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 6], directing him to file the appropriate summonses on the docket and to identify the parties to be served as per Rule 4.
However, almost two years later, Plaintiff has failed to file anything in this case other than a notice of an address change. [D.E. 8-9].
On February 16, 2021, the Court issued an order to show cause because Plaintiff had failed to file any summonses or take any other action to litigate his claims. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before March 2, 2021 on why this case should not be dismissed for a failure to litigate. [D.E. 10]. Having now reviewed the record again, the time for Plaintiff to show cause has passed and Plaintiff has still failed to explain why this case should not be dismissed for a failure to litigate. Plaintiff has taken no action in this case since December 3, 2020 and the case has remained static since that time. Because Plaintiff has failed to show cause or take any other action to prosecute his claims
and the time to do so has long since passed, Plaintiff’s complaint should be DISMISSED and this action should be CLOSED. Pursuant to Local Magistrate Rule 4(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, the parties have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the District Judge. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from de novo determination by the District Judge of any factual or legal issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties
from challenging on appeal the District Judge’s Order based on any unobjected-to factual or legal conclusions included in the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; see, e.g., Patton v. Rowell, 2017 WL 443634 (11th Cir. Feb. 2, 2017); Cooley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2016 WL 7321208 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2016). DONE AND SUBMITTED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of March, 2021.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Maersk Line A/S v. Haribo Food 2004, Inc., 2017 WL 443634 (S.D. Fla. 2021)