Moore v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 13 Unopposed MOTION to Remand filed by Social Security Administration Commissioner. Objections to R&R due by 6/20/2024. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on June 6, 2024. (bjb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
EDWARD J. MOORE
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 5:24-cv-05032-MEF

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Edward Moore (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking
judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the
“Commissioner”) denying his application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 2). This matter is
presently before the undersigned for report and recommendation.
In lieu of an answer, the Commissioner filed the Social Security Transcript on April 4,
2024, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and
were conclusive. (ECF No. 7). See FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP SS RULE 4. On June 6, 2024, having
changed positions, the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion requesting that Plaintiff’s case
be remanded pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g) to conduct further administrative
proceedings. (ECF Nos. 13, 13-1).
The exclusive methods by which a district court may remand a social security case to the
Commissioner are set forth in “sentence four” and “sentence six” of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A remand
pursuant to “sentence six” is limited to two situations: where the Commissioner requests a remand
before answering the complaint, or where the court orders the Commissioner to consider new,
material evidence that was for good cause not presented before the agency. The Fourth sentence
of the statute provides that “[t]he court shall have power 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Shalala
v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 (1993). The Supreme Court has held that a remand for further
administrative proceedings, such as the remand requested here, is a sentence four remand within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1991).
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to
Remand be granted, and the case remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action
pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g).
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
written 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.
DATED this 6th day of June 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Ford
HONORABLE MARK E. FORD
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2