Thomas v. Astrue
Filing
14
ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 12 Unopposed MOTION to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Six filed by Michael J. Astrue. This motion is granted and this action is remanded to the Commissioner of SS for further administrative action as set out. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 1/11/2012. (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ASHLEY THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00569-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 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made
under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and dated December 20, 2011, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this
Court.
Accordingly, for good cause shown and because no answer has been filed, it is ORDERED
that Defendant=s Motion to Remand (Doc. 12) be and is hereby GRANTED and that this action is
REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g),
so that the Appeals Council can review any materials submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel to determine if
the file is complete, or if the file cannot be completed, the Appeals Council will remand the case to
an ALJ to reconstruct the administrative record, hold another administrative hearing, and issue a
decision. Pursuant to sentence six of Section 405(g), Plaintiff is not a prevailing party for purposes of
the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. ' 2412, as a result of this sentence six remand.
See Shalala v. Schafer, 509 U.S. 292, 297-298 and 300-302, 113 S. Ct. 2625, 2629 and 2631-2632,
125 L. Ed. 2d 239 (1993).
DONE and ORDERED this the 11th day of January 2012.
/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?