UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
March 30, 2009
KRIS HAMMOND PLAINTIFF,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint [#1], pursuant to Local Rule 8.1(d).
Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant on May 5, 2008, seeking judicial review of his application for disability benefits. Defendant filed his Answer and the Social Security Transcript on September 24, 2008. Pursuant to Local Rule 8.1, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was due 30 days after the Answer and Transcript were filed. Plaintiff did not file a brief by the deadline or any date thereafter.
On February 10, 2009, the Court entered a Text Order, noting that Local Rule 8.1(d) requires a Petitioner to file Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law within 30 days of the filing of Defendant's responsive pleading. The Court directed Petitioner to file a Motion for Summary Judgment within 14 days of the Text Order and stated that the Complaint would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if no motion was filed. A Docket Remark dated February 11, 2009, states that this Text Order was mailed to Plaintiff.
On February 24, 2009, Plaintiff's girlfriend, Annie Fisher, filed a letter on Plaintiff's behalf to share some of Plaintiff's medical difficulties with the Court. On February 25, 2009, the Court entered a Text Order finding that this letter, even if filed by Plaintiff, could not be construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment. Citing Local Rule 8.1, the Court explained that a Motion for Summary Judgment "shall state with particularity which findings of the Commissioner are contrary to law. The plaintiff shall identify the statute, regulation or case law under which the Commissioner allegedly erred. The plaintiff shall cite to the record by page number the factual evidence which supports the plaintiff's position. Arguing generally, 'the decision of the Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence' is not sufficient to meet this rule." The Court granted Plaintiff an additional seven days from the date of the Text Order to file a Motion for Summary Judgment that complies with Local Rule 8.1. Plaintiff did not file a Motion for Summary Judgment.
On March 12, 2009, the Court entered a text order, noting that Plaintiff did not file a Motion for Summary Judgment, in accordance it its February 25, 2009, Order. The Court granted Plaintiff an additional 14 days to file his Motion, and warned that the Court would dismiss his action for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has failed to file a Motion for Summary. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's cause of action must be dismissed because he has not prosecuted his claim, in compliance with Local Rule 8.1.
For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner's Complaint [#1] is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.
ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2009.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.