Magdycz v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WITH REMAND denying as moot 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 21 Motion to Remand. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss on 9/6/2021. See attached document for full details. (drz)
Case 0:20-cv-62495-JMS Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2021 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-CV-62495-JMS
EDWARD MAGDYCZ, o/b/o
KRISTEN ANTOINETTE CARROLL,
KILOLO KIJAKAZI 1,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WITH REMAND
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of
Judgment with Remand (“Motion”) (DE 21) requesting remand of this cause for further
proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties have consented for the
undersigned to “conduct any and all further proceedings in the case[, including] entry of [final]
judgment.” (DE 16). On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed his complaint seeking review of
Defendant’s denial of Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Security Act. (DE 1). On
May 21, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer and transcripts. (DE 12; DE 13). Plaintiff filed his
Motion for summary judgment on July 21, 2021, which remains pending. (DE 18). Defendant
Defendant notes that “Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on
July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Kilolo Kijakazi
should be substituted, therefore, for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit. No further action
need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” (DE 21 at n.1).
Case 0:20-cv-62495-JMS Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2021 Page 2 of 3
filed the instant Motion on September 3, 2021 requesting the Court to enter a final judgment 2
pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reversing the decision and remanding
this case to the Commissioner. (DE 21).
Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes a district court to “enter, upon the pleadings
and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner of Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). To remand under Sentence Four of § 405(g), the Court must find that “the decision is
not supported by substantial evidence, or that the Commissioner [or the Administrative Law Judge]
incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim.” Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1092
(11th Cir. 1996). Here, reversal and remand are necessary because Defendant concedes that
reconsideration is required. (DE 21).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
The Motion (DE 21) is GRANTED;
2. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further
proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) as follows:
a. On remand, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) will further evaluate the case
and issue a new administrative decision.
b. Specifically, on remand, the ALJ will give further consideration to the opinion
evidence of record, give further consideration to Plaintiff’s maximum residual
functional capacity, and, if warranted, obtain supplemental evidence from a
“[I]t is preferable that [a final] judgment be entered separately.” Baez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
760 F. App'x 851, 855 (11th Cir. 2019).
Case 0:20-cv-62495-JMS Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2021 Page 3 of 3
vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on Plaintiff’s
3. The CLERK is directed to CLOSE this case;
4. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT; and
5. The Court will separately enter a Final Judgment.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 6th day of September 2021.
Copies provided to counsel of record via CM/EFT.
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?