Brasel v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND REMAND. Defendants Unopposed Motion for Remand [#22], is granted. The conclusion of the Commissioner through the Administrative Law Judge that plaintiff was not disabled is reversed. This matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judgment shall enter in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and consistent with the United States Supreme Court� 39;s decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-302, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 2628-32, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993); and plaintiff is awarded her costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1). By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/9/15.(kfinn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-03290-REB
MARIA ELLA BRASEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND REMAND
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Remand [#22],1
filed September 8, 2015. By this motion, defendant requests the court remand this
matter for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Having reviewed the motion and the file, and being apprised of the premises, the court
finds and concludes that the motion is well-taken and should be granted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Remand [#22], filed September 8,
2015, is granted,
2. That the conclusion of the Commissioner through the Administrative Law
Judge that plaintiff was not disabled is reversed;
3. That this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative
proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
1

“[#22]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.

4. That judgment shall enter in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and consistent with the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-302, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 262832, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993); and
5. That plaintiff is awarded her costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the court
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1 and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(a)(1).
Dated September 9, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2