Shade v. Astrue

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 17 Unopposed MOTION to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four filed by Michael J. Astrue. The Defendant's unopposed Motion to Remand is GRANTED, and this matter is reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for action consistent with the Defendant's motion. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 12/29/2010. (cmj)

Download PDF
Shade v. Astrue Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION GLYNIS SHADE, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * Civil Action 10-00190-KD-B ORDER After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and dated December 14, 2010 is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that Defendant=s unopposed Motion to Remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) (Doc. 17) be and hereby is GRANTED, and that this action is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) so that the Appeals Council will remand the case to an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing and "review and clarify Dr. Fontana's assessment, further evaluate the claimant's residual functional capacity, and obtain vocational expert testimony to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on the claimant's occupational base." (Doc. 17 at 1). This remand, pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g), makes Plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act (AEAJA@), 28 U.S.C. ' 2412. U.S. 292 (1993). DONE this 29th day of December, 2010. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 s/ Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?