Jones v. O'Malley

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's unopposed motion to reverse and remand [ECF No. 17 ] is GRANTED. A separate judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen on 8/28/2024. (TLR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:23-cv-01416 PLC
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Martin O’Malley’s motion to reverse the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and remand the case to Defendant for further
administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of section 405(g) of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). [ECF No. 17] Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion and the time to
do so has passed.
On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking review of Defendant’s final
decision denying Plaintiff’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security
Act. [ECF No. 1] Defendant filed a transcript of the administrative proceedings, and Plaintiff
filed a brief in support of the complaint, as well as a statement of material facts. [ECF Nos. 9, 16,
16-1]
In the instant motion, Defendant requests the Court reverse and remand the case for further
action under sentence four of section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, which authorizes the Court
to enter “a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or
without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See also Buckner v. Apfel,

213 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2000). Defendant represents that, upon review, agency counsel
determined that remand is necessary “for further evaluation of Plaintiff’s claim.” [ECF No. 17]
More specifically, Defendant states that on remand the ALJ “will further evaluate [Plaintiff’s]
residual functional capacity and proceed as necessary in the sequential evaluation process.” [ECF
No. 17]
Based on the record, the Court grants Defendant’s unopposed motion to reverse the ALJ’s
decision and remand this matter to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s unopposed motion to reverse and remand
[ECF No. 17] is GRANTED.
A separate judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this date.

PATRICIA L. COHEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of August, 2024

2