# Anastas v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · August 17, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10152523

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** August 17, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10152523

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

STEPHANIE M. ANASTAS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Civil No. 20-cv-156-MAB1
)
COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:

In accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the pro se plaintiff seeks judicial review of
the final agency decision denying her application for social security disability benefits
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423.
Plaintiff’s brief was originally due by June 5, 2020. When plaintiff missed that
deadline, the Court issued a Notice of Impending Dismissal. In that Notice, the Court
gave plaintiff an extension to August 6, 2020, in which to file her brief. The Court then
gave Plaintiff another extension to August 28, 2020. (Docs. 16, 18, 19). The Notice, Doc.
18, warned Plaintiff that failure to file her brief as ordered “may result in sanctions,
including the dismissal of this case.”
On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff responded to the Notice by requesting that her case
be dismissed. See, Doc. 20.
Plaintiff has failed to file a brief as ordered and has failed to diligently pursue

1 This case was assigned to the undersigned for final disposition upon consent of the parties pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §636(c). See, Doc. 13.
this case. This Court gave plaintiff the “warning shot” required by Ball v. City of Chicago,
2 F.3d 752, 755 (7th Cir. 1993) in Docs. 18 and 19. Pursuant to Johnson v. Chicago Board of

Education, 718 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2013), the Court has considered whether a sanction
short of dismissal of this case might be fruitful and finds that it would not. Therefore,
this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 17, 2020

s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10152523. Public record. Not legal advice.