Curran v. Colvin et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 20 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Remand, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/20/2015. (ebuch)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 15-cv-01159-REB CYNTHIA JEAN CURRAN, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER FOR REMAND AND JUDGMENT Blackburn, J. The matter before me is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Remand [#20],1 filed October 19, 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, I find and conclude that the motion is welltaken and should be granted. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Remand [#20], filed October 19, 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 “[#20]” 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 against defendant in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and consistent with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-302, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 2628-32, 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 October 20, 2015, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: 2

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?