Bradford v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER granting 14 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and the case is remanded. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all other pending motions and close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 11/21/2017. (LBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JULIUS L. BRADFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-1748-T-17JSS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of
Judgment with Remand.

(Dkt. 14.)

Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security

(“Commissioner”) requests, under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), that this action be reversed
and remanded to the administrative law judge (“ALJ”), for the ALJ’s further evaluation of
Plaintiff’s claim, “including whether a significant number of jobs exist that Plaintiff can perform.”
(Dkt. 14 at 1.) Plaintiff has no objection. (Id.)
Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court has the “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). When a case is remanded under sentence four of § 405(g), the
district court’s jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s case is terminated. Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086,
1095 (11th Cir. 1996); Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 625 (1990) (finding that a district
court’s order remanding under sentence four of § 405(g) “terminated the civil action challenging
the Secretary’s final determination that respondent was not entitled to benefits”). “Immediate

entry of judgment (as opposed to entry of judgment after postremand agency proceedings have
been completed and their results filed with the court) is in fact the principal feature that
distinguishes a sentence-four remand from a sentence-six remand.” Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S.
292, 297 (1993).
A remand under sentence four of § 405(g) “is based upon a determination that the
Commissioner erred in some respect in reaching the decision to deny benefits.” Jackson, 99 F.3d
at 1095. Here, the Commissioner concedes error by requesting a reversal of the Commissioner’s
decision. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1.

The Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Dkt.

14) is GRANTED.1
2.

The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s application for supplemental

security income is REVERSED.
3.

The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the reasons stated in the
Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion (Dkt. 14) and herein.
4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all other pending motions and close

1

On November 17, 2017, the undersigned entered a report and recommendation to the Honorable Elizabeth A.
Kovachevich regarding the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. (Dkt. 15.) After
the report and recommendation was entered, Judge Kovachevich entered an order approving the parties’ consent to
the undersigned’s jurisdiction, and the case was reassigned to the undersigned. (Dkt. 16.) Accordingly, the report
and recommendation (Dkt. 15) is stricken in light of this Order.

-2-

this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 21, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-3-