Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Liebe v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

July 19, 2017

ANGELA R. LIEBE, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Colin Lindsay, Magistrate Judge

         Over one year ago, in May 2016, Angela R. Liebe (“Liebe”) filed this lawsuit against the Commissioner. (DN 1.) Liebe has represented herself throughout the course of this action. On August 2, 2017, nearly one year ago, the Court ordered Liebe to file a memorandum of law and a fact and law summary setting forth her position. (DN 14 at 1.) The Court has granted Liebe numerous extensions to file a sufficient memorandum of law and fact and law summary. She has not done so. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         Liebe initiated this lawsuit on May 10, 2016 (DN 1). Liebe challenges the Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits on behalf of her minor son. (See DN 18, 19.) On July 25, 2016, the Commissioner filed an answer to Liebe's complaint (DN 11) and the administrative record of her son's case (DN 12). On July 29, 2016, Liebe consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over her case (DN 13). On August 2, 2016, the Court entered an order requiring Liebe to submit certain materials within sixty (60) days. The Court stated as follows:

1. Within sixty (60) days after the filing of the answer and the administrative record [], the plaintiff must set forth his/her position by an appropriate memorandum of law specifying, inter alia, the numbered findings of the final decision with which exception is taken and the specific errors that are alleged. Any such motion/memorandum shall be accompanied by a Fact and Law Summary on [the] form supplied by the Court. Failure of the plaintiff to comply with this provision may constitute grounds for dismissing the complaint.
[ . . . ]
3. The memoranda of law submitted pursuant to Paragraphs [1 and 2] above shall cite the Court to the specific pages of the administrative record in support of the parties' relative positions.
[ . . . ]
5. No extension of time for complying with the terms of this order shall be granted absent a showing of good cause.

(DN 14 at 1-2 (emphasis added).)

         Sixty days after the Commissioner filed the administrative record was September 23, 2016. Accordingly, the deadline for Liebe to file a memorandum of law and a fact and law summary was September 23, 2016. Liebe did not file anything prior to that deadline. On November 17, 2016, the Court ordered Liebe to “SHOW CAUSE as to why she did not file the required memorandum prior to the deadline imposed by the Court.” (DN 15 at 1.) The Court ordered Liebe to comply with the terms of the Court's August 2, 2016 order (DN 14) by filing a memorandum of law and a fact and law summary no later than December 19, 2016. (DN 15 at 1.) On December 8, 2016, the November 17, 2016 order (DN 15) was returned to the Court as undeliverable at the address provided to the Court by Liebe and with no forwarding address. (See DN 16 (notation regarding mail returned as undeliverable).)

         On December 28, 2016, the Court issued a second show cause order (DN 17). In that order, the Court noted that Liebe had still not filed the required memorandum of law or fact and law summary. (DN 17 at 1.) Further, the Court discussed pro se plaintiffs' obligations:

Pro se plaintiffs must comply with court orders and deadlines. Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). A pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with court deadlines can lead to a dismissal of the complaint. Id. Moreover, all pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential address, and, if different, mailing address, to the Clerk of Court and to the opposing party or its counsel. LR 5.2(e). Failure to notify the Clerk of Court of an address change may result in the dismissal of the litigant's case or other appropriate sanctions. Id.

(DN 17 at 1-2.) The Court concluded by ordering Liebe to show cause as to why she did not file the required memorandum of law and fact and law summary in compliance with the Court's order of August 2, 2016 (DN 14), and requiring her to comply ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.