Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_24-cv-02107/USCOURTS-arwd-2_24-cv-02107-0/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 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

FORT SMITH DIVISION 

MELISSA CUNNINGHAM PLAINTIFF 

 v. CIVIL NO. 2:24-cv-02107-MEF 

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Melissa Cunningham (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking 

judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the 

“Commissioner”) denying her application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 2). The parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case, and 

pursuant to said authority, the Court issues this Order. (ECF No. 7). 

In lieu of an answer, the Commissioner filed the Social Security Transcript on October 15, 

2024, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and 

were conclusive. (ECF No. 8). See FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP SS RULE 4. On November 20, 2024, 

having changed positions, the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion requesting that Plaintiff’s 

case be remanded pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g) to conduct further administrative 

proceedings. (ECF Nos. 14, 15). 

The exclusive methods by which a district court may remand a social security case to the 

Commissioner are set forth in “sentence four” and “sentence six” of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A remand 

pursuant to “sentence six” is limited to two situations: where the Commissioner requests a remand 

before answering the complaint, or where the court orders the Commissioner to consider new, 

material evidence that was for good cause not presented before the agency. The Fourth sentence 

Case 2:24-cv-02107-MEF Document 16 Filed 11/21/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

of the statute provides that “[t]he court shall have power 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Shalala 

v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 (1993). The Supreme Court has held that a remand for further 

administrative proceedings, such as the remand requested here, is a sentence four remand within 

the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1991). 

Accordingly, the Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Remand (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED,

and the case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to 

“sentence four” of section 405(g). 

DATED this 21st day of November 2024. 

 /s/ Mark E. Ford

HONORABLE MARK E. FORD 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02107-MEF Document 16 Filed 11/21/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>