Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00169/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00169-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Patty Coblentz
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATTY COBLENTZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO 05-0169-BH-L

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case is before the court on defendant’s motion to remand pursuant to sentence six of §

205(g) and §1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and §1383(c)(3). (Doc. 7). 

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). Upon consideration of all matters presented, the

undersigned recommends remand of this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further

administrative proceedings. 

Instead of filing an answer in this case, defendant has filed a motion to remand pursuant to

sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 7). In the motion to remand, defendant states she has been

informed by the Office of Hearings and Appeals that the administrative record is incomplete because no

evidence was identified or admitted into the record by the Administrative Law Judge from sections A,

B, or D of the disability file even though the evidence was present. Defendant also states that upon

receipt of the order of remand, the Appeals Council plans to issue a notice which will propose to admit

Case 1:05-cv-00169-C Document 8 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 4
1

 Sentence six remand 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. Schafer, 509 U. S. 292, 292 n.2,

113 S. Ct. 2625, 2629 n.2 (1993) (citations omitted). 

2

 Although this court retains jurisdiction, the Clerk of Court is directed to statistically close this

case at this time. This case shall be statistically reopened when the defendant files an answer along with

a transcript of the administrative proceedings. 

2

relevant documents into the record unless plaintiff’s representative presents a valid objection and in the

absence of objections, and prepare a certified administrative record for submission to the court. 

The first portion of sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides that “[t]he court may, on

motion of the Commissioner of Social Security made for good cause shown before the Commissioner

files the Commissioner’s answer, remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further

action by the Commissioner of Social Security[.]” 1 Defendant’s motion establishes good cause to

remand this case so that defendant can prepare a certified administrative record which contains

identified, numbered and properly admitted evidence for submission to the court. 

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

(1991). Accordingly, plaintiff is not a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act

(EAJA). 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See Shalala v. Schafer, 509 U. S. 292, 297-298 & 300-302, 113 S. Ct.

2625, 2629 & 2631-2632 (1993). “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.” Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 102, 111 S. Ct. at 2165.2

Defendant states that plaintiff’s counsel has been contacted and does not oppose the motion to

Case 1:05-cv-00169-C Document 8 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 4
3

remand. 

Wherefore, upon consideration of all matters presented, and for good cause shown, the 

Magistrate Judge recommends that the defendant’s motion to remand be GRANTED and the case

remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for action consistent

with defendant’s motion to remand. 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the report and

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DONE this 24th day of June, 2005. 

s / Kristi D. Lee 

KRISTI D. LEE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00169-C Document 8 Filed 06/24/05 Page 3 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 determinationbythe district judge of anything inthe recommendationand willbar

anattack, on appeal, of the factualfindings ofthe 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 by28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a “Statement of

Objectionto Magistrate Judge’sRecommendation” within tendays afterbeingservedwith

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 forthe 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 copyofthe 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.

Amagistrate judge’srecommendation cannot be appealed to aCourt ofAppeals; 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 witha copyofthe statement ofobjection. FED. R. CIV.

P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedingstape recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate judge findsthatthe tapes and originalrecordsinthis actionare 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 necessaryisrequired before the

United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

S / KRISTI D. LEE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00169-C Document 8 Filed 06/24/05 Page 4 of 4