Laifer et al v. Social Security Administration Employees et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Gail Anne Laifer and
Warren Laifer
v. 	Case No. 19-cv-907-LM
Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration, and
Manchester Housing Authority
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiffs Gail and
Warren Laifer have filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) which is
before this magistrate judge for preliminary review. 	See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2).
The Laifers’ filed their two-page complaint (Doc. No. 1) on
September 5, 2019. 	It appears that the Laifers believe they
have been unfairly or illegally denied Medicare and/or Medicaid,
Social Security, and housing benefits or assistance.
On May 20, 2020, the court entered a detailed order (Doc.
No. 4) finding that the complaint failed to comply with Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and providing the
Laifers thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint that would
comply with Rule 8, as explained in that order. 	The court also
notified the Laifers that their case may be dismissed upon
further preliminary review if they did not comply with the
court’s order. 	See May 20, 2020 Order (Doc. No. 4), at 6. 	As
Case 1:19-cv-00907-LM Document 5 Filed 07/10/20 Page 1 of 2

2
of this date, the Laifers have not filed an amended complaint.
It appears that the Laifers may have abandoned this action.
They did not file an amended complaint as directed by the court
within the time allowed, and they have had no contact with this
court since they filed the complaint in September 2019.
The district judge should therefore dismiss the Laifers’
complaint, without prejudice, and direct that the clerk’s office
enter judgment and close this case, because of the Laifers’
failure to comply with the court’s May 20, 2020 Order (Doc. No.
4) and their apparent failure to prosecute. 	Any objections to
this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
That period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to file
objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal
the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
________________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 10, 2020
cc: 	Gail Anne Laifer, pro se
Warren Laifer, pro se
Case 1:19-cv-00907-LM Document 5 Filed 07/10/20 Page 2 of 2