Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00141/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00141-0/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

DIANE POELLNITZ, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * Civil Action 07-00141-KD-B

 *

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, *

Commissioner of * 

Social Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s unopposed

Motion and Memorandum for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Sentence

Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand of the Cause to the

Defendant. (Doc. 12). 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 its Motion and Memorandum in support thereof, Defendant

requests a judgment of remand of the cause to the Commissioner of

Social Security for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 12).

Specifically, Defendant requests remand:

[F]or further administrative proceeding because the

Administrative Law Judge’s decision dated July 11, 2006,

and the recording of the administrative hearing held on

May 17, 2006, can not be located at this time. Upon

receipt of the Court’s order remanding the case, the

Commissioner will remand the case to an Administrative

Law Judge for a de novo hearing. 

(Id. at 1). Additionally, Defendant represents that Plaintiff’s

Case 2:07-cv-00141-B Document 13 Filed 02/07/08 Page 1 of 4
2

counsel has been contacted, and that there is no objection to the

relief sought in Defendant’s Motion. (Id.)

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

Defendant’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 Defendant’s motion.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (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 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 7th day of February, 2008.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00141-B Document 13 Filed 02/07/08 Page 2 of 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 ten 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)©); and 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:

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

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

See 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

Case 2:07-cv-00141-B Document 13 Filed 02/07/08 Page 3 of 4
4

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.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00141-B Document 13 Filed 02/07/08 Page 4 of 4