Almonte Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-01303
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Almonte Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Ramos dismissed the complaint after Chapman failed to pay the filing fee or renew his fee-waiver request.
Clinton Javier Almonte Chapman’s case was dismissed, and the Commissioner of Social Security remained the respondent in the closed action.
What happened
In Almonte Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security, Clinton Javier Almonte Chapman filed a complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that request and gave him opportunities to submit a new request or pay the fee, but he did neither.
A magistrate judge later gave Chapman another deadline and warned that failing to comply could lead to dismissal for not moving the case forward. After Chapman filed no payment, application, or objection, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal.
Judge Edgardo Ramos reviewed the recommendation, found no error, adopted it, and dismissed Chapman’s complaint. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Almonte Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-01303
- Edgardo Ramos
- June 11, 2024
Background
On February 12, 2021, Clinton Javier Almonte Chapman filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security. Chapman was representing himself and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that request on February 19, 2021, and gave him until March 5, 2021, either to submit an amended application to proceed without paying the fee or to pay the filing fee. He did neither.
On November 8, 2023, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang again directed Chapman to pay the $402 filing fee or submit an amended application by December 8, 2023. She warned that failing to do so could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Chapman again did neither.
Report and Recommendation
On April 25, 2024, Judge Wang issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the action be dismissed. The recommendation explained that the parties had fourteen days to file written objections. No objections were filed.
Court’s Ruling
The district court reviewed the recommendation and stated that it found no error, including no clear error on the face of the record. The court adopted Judge Wang’s recommendation.
The court dismissed Chapman’s complaint and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.