Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_12-cv-00279/USCOURTS-alsd-2_12-cv-00279-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA VAUGHN, *

 * 

Plaintiff, * Civil Action No.12-00279-CG-B

 *

vs. * 

 *

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, *

Commissioner of Social Security,*

 *

Defendant. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner’s 

unopposed Motion to Remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 17). This Motion has been referred to 

the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(3).

In the Motion, the Commissioner requests a judgment of 

remand of the cause to Social Security for further 

administrative proceedings, and advises that counsel for 

Plaintiff has been contacted and does not oppose the 

Commissioner’s request to remand this action pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 17). Specifically, 

the Commissioner states that on remand:

[T]he Commissioner will direct an Administrative 

Law Judge to further evaluate Plaintiff’s mental 

impairments and residual functional capacity, 

including obtaining updated treatment evidence; 

obtaining evidence from a medical expert regarding 

Case 2:12-cv-00279-CG-B Document 19 Filed 10/11/12 Page 1 of 5
2

Plaintiff’s mental impairment; articulating the 

evaluation of severity of all medically 

determinable mental impairments under the 

Commissioner’s special technique for evaluating 

mental impairments; evaluating and articulating 

analysis regarding the examining source opinion of 

John R. Goff, Ph.D., as well as any additional 

medical source opinions in the updated record; 

determining whether Plaintiff has past relevant 

work she could perform; and obtaining vocational 

expert testimony, if appropriate.

(Doc. 18 at 1-2). 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the language of 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) empowering this Court “to 

enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a 

judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the 

cause for a rehearing,” the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the 

Commissioner’s unopposed Motion to Remand be GRANTED, and that 

this Court enter judgment reversing and remanding this cause to 

the Commissioner for action consistent with the Commissioner’s

motion. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 

101 (1991). 

This remand, pursuant to sentence four of section 205(g) of 

the Social Security Act, makes Plaintiff a prevailing party for 

purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412; Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

Case 2:12-cv-00279-CG-B Document 19 Filed 10/11/12 Page 2 of 5
3

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 11th day of October, 2012.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:12-cv-00279-CG-B Document 19 Filed 10/11/12 Page 3 of 5
4

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or 

anything in it must, within fourteen days of the date of service 

of this document, file specific written objections with the 

clerk of 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). 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, in part, 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 1 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 

 1 Effective December 1, 2009, the time for filing written 

objections was extended to “14 days after being served with a 

copy of the recommended disposition[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2).

Case 2:12-cv-00279-CG-B Document 19 Filed 10/11/12 Page 4 of 5
5

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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing 

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within fourteen 

(14) days of being served with a copy of the statement of 

objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. 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 action 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.

 

Case 2:12-cv-00279-CG-B Document 19 Filed 10/11/12 Page 5 of 5