Sparks v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 16 MOTION to Remand filed by Social Security Administration Commissioner. Objections to R&R due by 1/18/2017. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on January 4, 2017. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DAVID R. SPARKS
Civil No. 2:16-cv-02155
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before this Court is Defendant’s Motion to Remand. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff does not oppose
this Motion. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2005), the Honorable P.
K. Holmes, III referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and
recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court enters the following report and
Defendant requests Plaintiff’s case be remanded. ECF No. 16. Defendant requests this
remand so the ALJ may conduct further administrative proceedings and to obtain a complete record.
Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No.
16) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s case be remanded, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), to the Social Security Administration for further administrative review.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2017.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. 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?