Ahlin v. Social Security Adminsitration

District of Nebraska, ned-8:2005-cv-00447

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In two Orders (filing no. 23 dated February 28, 2007, and 27 dated March 15, 2007), I inquired whether the plaintiff, Sherry L. Ahlin, wished to continue with this litigation against the Commissioner of Social Security. There has been no response from the plaintiff, and the defendant reports that the plaintiff, who relocated to California, has filed the same orsimilar claims against the Commissioner of Social Security at her new location.Accordingly, this case appears to be abandoned and moot and will be dismissed without prejudice. Judgment will be entered accordingly. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (order sent to plaintiff at address listed on docket sheet and to Sherry L. Ahlinc/o Social Security Administration3240 South HigueraSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

8:05-cv-00447-JFB-PRSE Doc # 31 Filed: 03/30/07 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 81 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA SHERRY L. AHLIN,)) 8:05cv447 Plaintiff,)) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER vs.)) COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY) ADMINISTRATION,)) Defendant.) In two Orders (filing no. 23 dated February 28, 2007, and 27 dated March 15, 2007), I inquired whether the plaintiff, Sherry L. Ahlin, wished to continue with this litigation against the Commissioner of Social Security. There has been no response from the plaintiff, and the defendant reports that the plaintiff, who relocated to California,1 has filed the same or similar claims against the Commissioner of Social Security at her new location. Accordingly, this case appears to be abandoned and moot and will be dismissed without prejudice.2 Judgment will be entered accordingly. SO ORDERED. DATED this 30th day of March, 2007. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph F. Bataillon JOSEPH F. BATAILLON Chief District Judge 1 I previously directed the Clerk of Court to update the court's records to reflect the plaintiff's new address and to send her the court's inquiries at that location (filing no. 27). 2 See NECivR 41.1, which states in pertinent part: "At any time when it appears that any action is not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence the court may dismiss it for lack of prosecution."