Hoke v. Social Security Administration
ORDER granting 15 Motion to Remand. This case is reversed and remanded in accordance with the terms outlined by the Commissioner. The remand in this case is a "sentence four" remand. The dismissal of this case is without prejudice to Hoke's subsequent filing of a motion for attorney's fees and expenses. A separate Judgment will be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 1/5/2016. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NO. 3:15-cv-00203 PSH
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration
The Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”)
has filed the pending unopposed motion to reverse and remand. See Pleading 15.1 In the
motion, the Commissioner asks that this case be reversed and remanded so as to allow
her to conduct “further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and
Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991).” See Pleading 15 at 1. The Commissioner
represents, and the Court accepts as true, that the attorney for plaintiff Brenda Hoke
(“Hoke”) does not oppose the granting of this motion.
For good cause shown, the motion to reverse and remand is granted. This case is
reversed and remanded in accordance with the terms outlined by the Commissioner. The
remand in this case is a “sentence four” remand. The dismissal of this case is without
The Commissioner filed what appears to be an identical motion on the same day. See Pleading 16.
Because the motion is duplicative, it is denied as moot.
prejudice to Hoke’s subsequent filing of a motion for attorney’s fees and expenses
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. A separate judgment will be entered
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2016.
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?