Peter Walker v. Nancy A. Berryhill ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER WALKER, ) NO. CV 19-3218-E ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) JUDGMENT ) 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER ) OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ___________________________________) 17 18 Pursuant to the “Order of Dismissal,” this action is dismissed 19 without prejudice. 20 21 DATED: October 23, 2019. 22 23 /S/ CHARLES F. EICK CHARLES F. EICK 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER WALKER, ) NO. CV 19-3218-E ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER ) OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ___________________________________) 17 18 Plaintiff filed this social security action on April 24, 2019. 19 The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate 20 Judge. Defendant filed an Answer on August 19, 2019. 21 22 In accordance with the “Order,” filed May 2, 2019, Plaintiff’s 23 motion for summary judgment or remand was due thirty days after the 24 filing of Defendant’s Answer. Defendant’s Answer was filed on 25 August 19, 2019, but Plaintiff failed to file a motion for 26 summary judgment or remand within thirty days thereafter. 27 /// 28 /// 1 By Minute Order filed September 24, 2019, the Court observed 2 that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was overdue. The same 3 Order required Plaintiff to file within twenty (20) days of 4 September 24, 2019, a motion for summary judgment or a declaration 5 signed under penalty of perjury attempting to show cause, if there be 6 any, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 7 prosecute. The Court cautioned that “[f]ailure timely to comply with 8 this order may be deemed consent to the dismissal of this action.” 9 Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to comply with the September 24, 2019 10 Minute Order within the allotted time. 11 12 In view of the circumstances discussed above, this action is 13 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 14 comply with the Court’s orders to file a timely motion for summary 15 judgment or remand. See Link v. Wabash, R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 16 (1952) (court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and 17 expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to 18 prosecute); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.), 19 cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992) (court may dismiss action for 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 failure to comply with a court order, after the court considers the 2 appropriate factors);1 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 4 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 6 DATED: October 23, 2019. 7 8 ________________________________ CHARLES F. EICK 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Court has considered the appropriate factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet and has concluded that dismissal 27 without prejudice is appropriate. In particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under the 28