Opinion

Edwards

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Apr 6, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 40.4%

a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order

How later courts described this case

  • a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY EDWARDS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:25-CV-01835-SRW

)

FRANK J. BISIGNANO, )

Commissioner of Social Security )

Administration, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDU M AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on review of the file. The Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties have consented to the exercise

of authority by the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

On December 15, 2025, self-represented Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Judicial Review of

Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. ECF No. 1. On December 17, 2025, the Court

entered a Case Management Order setting out the briefing schedule to be followed in this case.

ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was ordered to file a Brief in Support of the Complaint within thirty (30) days

after service of the Commissioner’s certified administrative transcript. Id.

On February 9, 2026, Defendant Commissioner of Social Security filed the electronic

Certified Administrative Record and indicated it had sent a courtesy copy of the administrative

transcript to Plaintiff through the United States Mail Service. ECF No. 8. Thus, Plaintiff’s Brief in

Support of her Complaint was due no later than March 11, 2026.

On March 23, 2025, the Court reviewed the record and noticed Plaintiff had neither filed a

Brief in Support of her Complaint, nor submitted a request for additional time. Consequently, the

Court directed Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for her failure

to prosecute her case and comply with the Case Management Order. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff had

until March 31, 2026 to file a response. She was warned that failure to timely comply could result

in the dismissal of this action.

As of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s

Show Cause Order. The Court gave Plaintiff meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned

her that this case could be dismissed if she failed to comply timely, and gave her additional time

to comply. Therefore, this action will be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to

comply with the Court’s March 23, 2026 Show Cause Order, the December 17, 2025 Case

Management Order, and her failure to prosecute her case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown

v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action

for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A

separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in

good faith.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this 6th day of April, 2026.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.