Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00249/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00249-0/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

DAVID ASH, JR., : 

 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

 CIVIL ACTION 14-0249-M 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, : 

Commissioner of 

Social Security, : 

 Defendant. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), Plaintiff 

seeks judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which 

denied a claim for Supplemental Security Income (Doc. 1). The 

parties filed written consent and this action has been referred 

to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings 

and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 17). 

Defendant has filed a Motion to Reverse and Remand, seeking 

entry of judgment under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with 

remand of the cause to the Defendant (Doc. 15). Defendant has 

stated that Plaintiff’s attorney has no objection to the motion 

(Doc. 15). Defendant makes no statement as to why this action 

should be remanded other than to say that it is proper under 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 15). The Court finds 

Case 2:14-cv-00249-M Document 18 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 2
2

that Defendant’s non-statement is a tacit admission that 

Plaintiff's application was not appropriately considered and 

that this action should be reversed. Without reviewing the 

substantive evidence of record, this Court accepts Defendant's 

acknowledgment of error.

It appears to the Court that the decision of the Secretary 

should be reversed and remanded. Such remand comes under 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 

501 U.S. 89 (1991). For further procedures not inconsistent 

with this report, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).

Therefore, it is ORDERED, without objection from Plaintiff, 

that Defendant’s Motion to Remand under sentence four be GRANTED

(Doc. 15) and that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED to the 

Social Security Administration for further administrative 

proceedings not inconsistent with the orders of this Court. 

Judgment will be entered by separate order.

DONE this 21st day of January, 2014. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00249-M Document 18 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2