Williams v. Astrue
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that the 17 Unopposed MOTION to Remand be GRANTED, & that this Court enter judgment reversing & remanding this cause to the Commissioner for action consistent w/the Dft's motion. Objections to R&R due by 1/21/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 1/6/09. (tot)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ALEXIA WILLIAMS o/b/o JARVIS T. WILLIAMS Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * *
Civil Action 08-00428-CG-B
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on Defendant's unopposed Motion and Memorandum for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand of the Cause to the Defendant. (Doc. 17). This Motion has been referred to the
undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(3). In its Motion and Memorandum, Defendant requests a judgment of remand of this cause to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings. Defendant states that on remand: (Doc. 17). Specifically,
[T]he Appeals Council will remand this case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who will be directed to (1) properly consider whether Plaintiff's asthmatic condition meets of equals the requirements of Listings 103.02 and 103.03; (2) update by recontacting treating sources; (3) receive testimony from a medical expert; and (4) obtain a consultative examination, if warranted. ( (Id. at 1). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the language of sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) empowering this Court "to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing," the undersigned RECOMMENDS that
Defendant's unopposed Motion to Remand be GRANTED, and that this Court enter judgment reversing and remanding this cause to the Commissioner for action consistent with the Defendant's motion. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). This remand, pursuant to sentence four of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, makes Plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). § 2412; Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993). DONE this 6th day of January, 2008. /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 U.S.C.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT 1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)©); and Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part: A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a "Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation" within ten days after being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is established by order. The statement of objection shall specify those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made and the basis for the objection. The objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the party's arguments that the magistrate judge's recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the objection. A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals; only the district judge's order or judgment can be appealed. 2. Opposing party's response to the objection. Any opposing party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10) days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in this
action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination that transcription is necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript. /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 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?