Lawson v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
SHARI M. L.,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:19-CV-00851
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 	(PJE)
Defendant.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
Shari M. L.
8 Berry Road
Marlborough, New York 12542
Plaintiff pro se
Social Security Administration 	KRISTIAN D. COHN, ESQ.
Office of Regional General Counsel
Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
Attorneys for defendant
CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DECISION & ORDER
On December 12, 2018, the Commissioner issued a decision determining that
plaintiff is not disabled. See Dkt. No. 7-2 at 18-28. On February 21, 2019, plaintiff
sought Appeals Council review, and on May 21, 2019, the Appeals Council denied her
request as untimely for failing to file her request within sixty days of receipt of the
decision or providing a statement as to why she did not timely appeal. See Dkt. No. 1 at
7-10. Plaintiff commended this action on July 17, 2019. See Dkt. No. 1. On July 14,
2020, the Court found that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in dismissing
Case 1:19-cv-00851-PJE Document 30 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
plaintiff’s request for review as untimely. See Dkt. Nos. 13, 14. On July 31, 2020,
plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit. See Dkt. Nos. 15-16. On April 18, 2021, and
April 28, 2021, the Second Circuit remanded the matter to this Court, instructing the
Court to remand to the agency in order to consider new evidence relating to the
timeliness of plaintiff’s administrative appeal. Dkt. No. 20, 22. On April 29, 2021,
pursuant to the Second Circuit’s directive, the Court remanded this action to the
Commissioner pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Dkt. Nos. 21, 23.
On May 6, 2024, the Appeals Council set aside its earlier dismissal and
considered plaintiff’s request for review to be timely, and, after considering additional
evidence, denied plaintiff’s request for review on the merits. See Dkt. No. 25-1. The
Appeals Council determined that plaintiff failed to show that the evidence from the
relevant was reasonably probable to change the outcome of the decision and that the
remaining evidence did not relate to the time period in question. See id. The Appeals
Council’s denial of the request for review rendered the ALJ’s December 12, 2018, denial
of benefits final. Plaintiff did not take any action following the May 6, 2024, Appeals
Council denial.
On September 13, 2024, the Commissioner contacted Plaintiff to inquire if she
wished to continue with this claim. As of this date, the agency has not received any
indication that Plaintiff wishes to continue this claim, and Plaintiff did not respond to the
Commissioner’s outreach.” Dkt. No. 25 at 3.
On April 7, 2025, defendant requested that this case be reopened to resolve this
Court’s sentence six jurisdiction, and upon reopening, sought this Court to dismiss the
Case 1:19-cv-00851-PJE Document 30 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
action. See Dkt. No. 25. Therein, defendant notes that the proceedings on remand
have concluded and that plaintiff has not responded to his efforts to contact her.
Defendant served this motion upon plaintiff. See Dkt. Nos. 27, 28. Plaintiff failed to
respond.
On November 5, 2025, the Court issued a text order sua sponte granting plaintiff
thirty days to inform the Court, in writing, whether she intended to pursue this action and
advising her that her failure to comply will result in dismissal of the action. See Dkt. No.
29. Despite the passage of two months since the Court’s issuance of this text order,
plaintiff has failed to respond.
In response to defendant’s informal efforts to contact plaintiff in September 2025,
the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss served on plaintiff in April 2025, and this Court’s
November 2025 text order granting an extension of time and clearly advising plaintiff
that her failure to comply with the text order will result in the dismissal of her case,
plaintiff made no efforts to contact the Court or pursue this case in any form. In a Social
Security appeal pursuant to sentence six, the district court retains jurisdiction over the
case until completion of the administrative proceedings on remand. Those
administrative proceedings are now completed, defendant has filed the Appeals Council
denial, and plaintiff has not indicated any intent to pursue an appeal of the Appeals
Council’s denial or this action.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and
pursuant to this Court’s November 5, 2025, Text Order, it is hereby
ORDERED, that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss following remand pursuant to
sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Dkt. No. 25, is GRANTED, this matter is reopened
Case 1:19-cv-00851-PJE Document 30 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
and DISMISSED, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 205(g), 405(g), and Judgment is to be separately
entered in favor of defendant, it is further
ORDERED, that this Decision & Order be served on parties pursuant to the Local
Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:19-cv-00851-PJE Document 30 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 4