Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00041/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00041-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 The absence of the claim file makes it impossible for the Commissioner to

compile an administrative record to file with his answer. (Compare Doc. 14 with Doc. 5, ¶ 1

(“The Commissioner of Social Security shall file an answer, together with a transcript of the

administrative proceedings, within ninety (90) days after service of the complaint.”)) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LELA BOWMAN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 06-0041-BH-C

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The defendant has filed a motion to remand this cause under sentence

six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (See Doc. 14) The Commissioner has been unable

to locate the claim file and therefore has requested a remand to search for the

file or, if the search proves futile, to reconstruct the file.1

 (See id.) The motion

to remand reveals that counsel for the defendant, Patricia N. Beyer, Esquire,

notified plaintiff’s counsel, Melissa Horner, Esquire, of the contents of the

motion and was advised by Ms. Horner that the plaintiff would interpose no

objection to the motion to remand. (See id. at 2) 

Case 2:06-cv-00041-BH-C Document 15 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 4
2 Sentence-six remand cases may be ordered in only two situations: where, as here,

the Commissioner "requests a remand before answering the complaint, or where new, material

evidence is adduced that was for good cause not presented before the agency." Shalala v.

Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 n.2, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 2629 n.2, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993) (citations

omitted).

2

The first portion of sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides that

"[t]he court may, on motion of the [Commissioner] made for good cause

shown before he files his answer, remand the case to the [Commissioner] for

further action by the [Commissioner]."2

 The Commissioner's inability to

compile an administrative record for this Court's review establishes good

cause to remand this case to the Commissioner in order that the Commissioner

may find the missing claim file or reconstruct same. Obviously, with entry of

this sentence-six remand the Court "does not rule in any way as to the

correctness of the administrative determination." Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501

U.S. 89, 98, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 2163, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991). Accordingly, the

plaintiff is not a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See Schaefer, supra, 509 U.S. at 298, 113 S.Ct. at

2629. "In sentence six cases, the [EAJA] filing period does not begin until

after the postremand proceedings are completed, the [Commissioner] returns

to court, the court enters a final judgment, and the appeal period runs."

Case 2:06-cv-00041-BH-C Document 15 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 4
3 Although this Court retains jurisdiction over this case, the Clerk of Court is

directed to statistically close this case at this time. This case is to be statistically reopened when

the defendant files an answer along with a transcript of the administrative proceedings.

3

Melkonyan, supra, 501 U.S. at 102, 111 S.Ct. at 2165.3

For good cause shown, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this case

be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence six

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections

to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

DONE this the 30th day of October, 2006.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00041-BH-C Document 15 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 4
4

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must,

within ten days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with

the Clerk of this court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual

findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en

banc). The procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate

Judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate judge in

a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),

by filing a ‘Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation’

within ten days after being served with a copy of the recommendation,

unless a different time is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to which objection is

made and the basis for the objection. The objecting party shall submit to

the district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be

reviewed de novo and a different disposition made. It is insufficient to

submit only a copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate judge,

although a copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the objection. Failure to submit a

brief in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection. 

A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals;

only the district judge's order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge finds that the tapes and original

records in this case are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this

recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the United States will pay the

cost of the transcript.

_s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY____ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00041-BH-C Document 15 Filed 10/30/06 Page 4 of 4