Agnew v. Saul
ORDER granting 18 Defendant's Consent Motion for Reversal and Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); denying as moot 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 6/7/21. (mga)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CASE NO. 3:20-CV-407-DCK
ANDREW M. SAUL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant’s “Consent Motion For
Reversal And Remand Pursuant To Sentence Four Of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)” (Document No. 18)
filed June 4, 2021. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the
motion and the record, the undersigned will grant the motion.
By the instant motion, Defendant “moves this Court, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), to enter a judgment reversing his decision and remanding this case for further
administrative proceedings.” (Document No. 18, p. 1) (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292
(1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991)). Defendant notes that “[u]nder sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this 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, with or
without remanding the cause for a rehearing.’” Id. Plaintiff’s counsel does not oppose Defendant’s
request to remand. (Document No. 18-1, p. 2).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant’s “Consent Motion For Reversal And
Remand Pursuant To Sentence Four Of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)” (Document No. 18) is GRANTED.
This matter is REMANDED to Defendant for further consideration and proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For Summary Judgment”
(Document No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Signed: June 7, 2021
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?