# Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, E.D. New York · August 12, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10302861

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** August 12, 2019
- **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/10302861

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
neeeeee renee nena mann ence nw nnnnemennemenenenenn K
JENNIFER BROWN, :
Plaintiff :
v. : DECISION & ORDER
: 17-CV-5486 (WFK)
COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, :
Defendant. :
nentennenee ence wenn enna nena ee ene enemnneeennenens KX
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ II, United States District Judge:
Jennifer Brown (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this social security action on
September 14, 2017. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On September 25, 2017, this Court issued an
Order requiring the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) to file its answer to the
complaint on or before December 15, 2017 and to move for judgment on the pleadings on or
before February 16, 2018. See ECF No. 4. On February 15, 2018, Defendant—with Plaintiff's
consent—requested an extension of time to serve its motion. See ECF No. 10. On February 16,
2018, the Court so ordered the parties’ requested amended motion schedule, which provided
Plaintiff would respond to Defendant’s motion on or before April 24, 2018. Id; see also Feb. 16,
2018 ECF Order. Pursuant to this Court’s Order, Defendant filed its dispositive motion for
judgment on the pleadings on May 8, 2018. See Def.’s Mot. for J. on the Pleadings, ECF No. 12.
Plaintiff, contravening this Court’s Order, never replied to Defendant’s motion.
On May 17, 2019, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file her response or
otherwise show cause as to her failure to respond by June 21, 2019, See ECF No. 16. This Court
further explained that Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in
dismissal of her case. /d.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, in relevant part, “[flor failure
of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with .. . any order of the court, a defendant may move
for dismissal of an action or any claim against the defendant.” A district court has the inherent

power to dismiss a case with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Link

v. Wabash R.R. Co., 360 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). By failing to respond to Defendant’s motion,
thereby contravening the Court’s February 16, 2018 Order, and further failing to comply with the
Court’s May 17, 2019 Order directing her to file her response, Plaintiff has failed to pursue her
claim. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff's noncompliance warrants dismissal. Such
dismissal is without prejudice given Plaintiff's pro se status.
For the foregoing reasons, the above-captioned action is hereby DISMISSED for failure
to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

g Z4 We “a?
/
HON. WILLIAM F. KYNTZ, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 12, 2019
Brooklyn, New York

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10302861. Public record. Not legal advice.