Ash v. Colvin

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER entered. It is ORDERED, without objection from Plaintiff, that Defendant's 15 Motion to Remand under sentence four be GRANTED 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, as further set out in Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr on 1/21/2015. (clr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DAVID ASH, JR.,

:

Plaintiff,

:

vs.

:

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of
Social Security,

:

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION 14-0249-M

:
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), Plaintiff
seeks judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which
denied a claim for Supplemental Security Income (Doc. 1).

The

parties filed written consent and this action has been referred
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings
and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 17).
Defendant has filed a Motion to Reverse and Remand, seeking
entry of judgment under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with
remand of the cause to the Defendant (Doc. 15).

Defendant has

stated that Plaintiff’s attorney has no objection to the motion
(Doc. 15).

Defendant makes no statement as to why this action

should be remanded other than to say that it is proper under
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 15).

The Court finds

that Defendant’s non-statement is a tacit admission that
Plaintiff'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).
501 U.S. 89 (1991).

See Melkonyan v. Sullivan,

For further procedures not inconsistent

with this report, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).
Therefore, it is ORDERED, without objection from Plaintiff,
that Defendant’s Motion to Remand under sentence four be GRANTED
(Doc. 15) 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 21st day of January, 2014.
s/BERT W. MILLING, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2