ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION
September 16, 2011
LESTER MCCALL, PLAINTIFF,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, SUED AS MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge
E-FILED Friday, 16 September, 2011 10:54:30 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court,
On August 31, 2011, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal filed a Report and Recommendation (#18) in the above cause. On September 6, 2011, the pro se Plaintiff, Lester McCall, filed an Objection (#19). In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Bernthal set out the procedural history of the case and noted that Plaintiff had not filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment and a Memorandum of Law which must state with particularity which findings of the Commissioner are contrary to law" as required by Rule 8.1(D) of the Local Rules of the Central District of Illinois. Judge Bernthal further noted that, on August 8, 2011, he entered a text order setting the matter for a telephone conference call for the purpose of reminding Plaintiff of his obligation to pursue the matter. On August 17, 2011, at the time set for the telephone conference call, the court placed a call to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not answer the call and no message could be left for him because the mailbox was full. Judge Bernthal concluded that Plaintiff had abandoned the case and recommended dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint due to the failure to prosecute.
As noted, on September 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se Objection (#19). The objection states, in its entirety, "I Lester McCall object to this Report and Recommendations entered by Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal on 8-31-2011." Plaintiff did not provide any explanation for his failure to file the required Motion for Summary Judgment or his failure to be available by telephone at the telephone conference call held on August 17, 2011. In short, Plaintiff has given this court no basis for disagreeing with Judge Bernthal's Report and Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (#18) is accepted by this court.
(2) Plaintiff's Complaint (#1) is dismissed for failure to prosecute.
(3) This case is terminated.
Michael P. McCuskey
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.