(SS) Nunez v. Commissioner Social Security

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OCTAVIO NUNEZ, No. 2:24-cv-3166 AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

17 Plaintiff is proceeding with counsel in this Social Security case, and the action was referred to the undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(19). On November 15, 2024, shortly after this case was filed, the parties were ordered to submit forms regarding their consent or decline of magistrate judge jurisdiction no later than February 18, 2025. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff did not file his forms and was ordered to show cause on March 6, 2025. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause. The Commissioner filed the Administrative Record in this case on February 28, 2025. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff did not submit a motion for summary judgment as required by the scheduling order issued in this case. On April 24, 2025, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause directed to plaintiff, ordering him to file a motion for summary judgment within 14 days and cautioning him that failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff again did not respond or file a motion. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that plaintiff has abandoned this case, and || recommends it be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

2 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has || considered “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to | manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring || disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. || Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not taken any || action in this case since filing it, despite the issuance of multiple orders to show cause. Because | this case cannot move forward without plaintiff's participation, the court finds the factors weigh || in favor of dismissal.

10 Therefore, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to this case and IT | ISHEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of || prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local | Rule 110.

14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one | (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written || objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s || Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

20 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21 | DATED: May 13, 2025 ~ 22 thin Chane ALLISON CLAIRE 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE