Holcombe v. Colvin
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 14 Motion to Remand Under Sentence Four and that this action be REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Social Security Administration, as further set out in Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr on 7/23/2015. (clr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DOROTHY M. HOLCOMBE,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
CIVIL ACTION 15-028-KD-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff seeks
judicial review of an adverse social security ruling that denied
a claim for disability insurance benefits (Doc. 11).
Defendant has filed a Motion to Remand, seeking judgment
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with remand of the
cause to the Defendant (Doc. 14).
Defendant has stated that
Plaintiff’s Attorney has no objection to the motion (Doc. 14).
In her Motion, Defendant states that “the Commissioner’s final
decision will be vacated, and a new decision will be issued”
(Doc. 14, p. 2).
The Court finds that this is a tacit admission that
Holcombe's application was not appropriately considered and that
this action should be reversed.
Without reviewing the
substantive evidence of record, this Court accepts Defendant's
acknowledgment of error.
It appears to the Court that the decision of the Secretary
should be reversed and remanded.
Such remand comes under
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
See Melkonyan v. Sullivan,
501 U.S. 89 (1991).
Therefore, it is ORDERED, without objection from Plaintiff,
that Defendant’s Motion to Remand under sentence four be GRANTED
(Doc. 14) and that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED to the
Social Security Administration for further administrative
proceedings not inconsistent with the orders of this Court.
Judgment will be entered by separate order.
DONE this 23rd day of July, 2015.
s/BERT W. MILLING, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?