Overton v. Colvin
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND REMAND: granting 19 Motion to Remand. The conclusion of the Commissioner through the Administrative Law Judge that plaintiff was not disabled is reversed. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/30/15.(kfinn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01086-REB
RICHARD A. OVERTON,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND REMAND
The matter before me is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Remand [#19],1
filed November 27, 2015. By this motion, defendant requests that 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 [#19], filed November
27, 2015, is granted,
2. That the conclusion of the Commissioner through the Administrative Law
Judge that plaintiff was not disabled is reversed;
“[#19]” 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.
3. That this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative
proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
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 his 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.
Dated November 30, 2105, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
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?