TAYLOR v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JENNIFER T., 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00330-SDN
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	)
Commissioner of 	)
Social Security, 	)
)
Defendant 	)
RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL
In June 2025, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint appealing the
denial of her applications for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security
Income benefits. 	See Complaint (ECF No. 1). 	After the administrative record was
filed, a procedural order issued setting August 28, 2025, as the deadline for the
Plaintiff to file her brief. See ECF No. 11. The Plaintiff failed to file a brief by that
deadline, so I issued an order on September 8, 2025, directing her to show cause by
September 22, 2025, why her case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
See ECF No. 14. 	On September 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an
extension 	of 	time 	and 	indicating 	that 	she 	was 	still 	seeking 	representation.
See ECF No. 15. 	I granted the Plaintiff’s motion and extended the deadline for her
to file her brief to October 20, 2025. 	See ECF No. 16. 	Once again, the Plaintiff did
not file a brief (or motion for extension) by the October 20, 2025, deadline, nor has
she done so since then.
Case 2:25-cv-00330-SDN Document 19 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply with this Court’s orders and
deadlines warrants the dismissal of her case. 	See, e.g., Bloomquist v. Cloutier,
No. 2:16-cv-00337-DBH, 2017 WL 1393793, at *1-2 (D. Me. Mar. 30, 2017) (rec. dec.)
(holding that dismissal was warranted for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to
comply with multiple court orders), aff’d, 2017 WL 1389457 (D. Me. Apr. 18, 2017);
see also Díaz-Santos v. Dep’t of Educ., 108 F. App’x 638, 640 (1st Cir. 2004) (“A district
court’s inherent powers to sanction parties for litigation abuses include the power to
act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute.”); Unitronics (1989) (R’’G) Ltd.
v. Gharb, 85 F. Supp. 3d 118, 126 (D.D.C. 2015) (“[D]istrict courts may . . . sua sponte
dismiss a complaint under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 41(b) for failure to comply with a court
order.”).
Nevertheless, the circumstances do not warrant dismissal with prejudice.
See Pomales v. Celulares Telefónica, Inc., 342 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2003) (“Dismissal
with prejudice for failure to prosecute is appropriate in the face of extremely
protracted inaction (measured in years), disobedience of court orders, ignorance of
warnings, 	contumacious 	conduct, 	or 	some 	other 	aggravating 	circumstance.”
(cleaned up)).
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DISMISS this action without
prejudice.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate
Judge’s 	report 	or proposed 	findings 	or 	recommended 	decisions 	entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District
Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
Case 2:25-cv-00330-SDN Document 19 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 	A responsive memorandum
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s
order.
Dated: October 30, 2025
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00330-SDN Document 19 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>