Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00381/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00381-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
William Henry Moore
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1Effective February 1, 2007, Michael J. Astrue was confirmed by

the Senate to serve as the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant

to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Michael J.

Astrue should be substituted, therefore, for Commissioner Jo Anne B.

Barnhart as the Defendant in this suit. No further action need be

taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section

205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM HENRY MOORE, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0381-M 

: 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,1 : 

Commissioner of : 

Social Security, : 

: 

Defendant. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security

ruling which denied claims for disability insurance benefits and

Supplemental Security Income (Docs. 1, 9). 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. 15). 

Defendant has filed a 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. 13). Defendant has

Case 2:06-cv-00381-M Document 16 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 3
2

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

(Doc. 13, p. 2). 

Defendant states the following:

On remand by the Court, the Appeals Council

will remand this case to an Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ) for further consideration of

the claimant’s mental and physical

impairments and the medical source opinions

regarding the nature, severity and limiting

effects of those impairments. Supplemental

evidence from a vocational evidence [sic]

will also be obtained, as and if appropriate. 

(Doc. 13, pp. 1-2). This 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. 

Case 2:06-cv-00381-M Document 16 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Judgment will be entered by separate order.

DONE this 12th day of March, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00381-M Document 16 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 3