Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 12

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PARTIES JOINT, UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR REMAND (DOC. 11 ) BE GRANTED, AND THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON THE COURTS DOCKET. Objections to R&R due by 6/9/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 05/23/14. (pb1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ANTHONY MARTIN,
Case No.: 3:13-CV-336
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PARTIES’ JOINT, UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR REMAND (DOC. 11) BE GRANTED, AND THIS CASE BE
TERMINATED ON THE COURT’S DOCKET 1

This case is before the Court pursuant to the parties’ joint, unopposed motion for remand.
Doc. 11. Counsel for both sides request that the Court order a remand of this case for further
administrative proceedings pursuant to the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and enter
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Doc. 11 at PageID 884. The parties ask that, upon
remand, the Appeals Council vacate the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) non-disability
decision, and the Commissioner conduct further proceedings and develop the administrative
record as necessary to determine whether or not Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the
Social Security Act.
For good cause shown, and because the requirements of a Sentence Four Remand have
been satisfied, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:
1.

1

The ALJ’s non-disability finding be found unsupported by substantial evidence,
and the parties’ joint, unopposed motion for a Sentence Four remand be
GRANTED;

Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.

2.

This case be REMANDED for the further administrative proceedings discussed
above; and

3.

This case be TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

May 23, 2014

s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being
served with this Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is
extended to SEVENTEEN days because this Report and Recommendation is being served by
one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), and may be
extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify
the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected to, and shall be accompanied by a
memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in
whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall
promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree
upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise
directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being
served with a copy thereof.

As is made clear above, this period is likewise extended to

SEVENTEEN days if service of the objections is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C),
(D), (E), or (F). Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights
on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

-3-