Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00191/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00191-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Cherise M. Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHERISE M. WILLIAMS, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

v. * Civil Action No.05-00191-CG-B

 *

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, *

Commissioner of * 

Social Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s 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. 14). 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, Defendant requests a judgment, with an order

of reversal, with remand of the cause to the Commissioner of

Social Security for further administrative proceedings.

Specifically, Defendant states that on remand, the Appeals

Council will vacate the December 2003 administrative decision

and direct the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to conduct a

hearing in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429, in which

Plaintiff has the opportunity to testify. Additionally,

Case 1:05-cv-00191-CG-B Document 15 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 5
1Although this Court’s review of the denial of an

application for supplemental security income falls under 42

U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), remand is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

(which applies to disability insurance benefits as opposed to

supplemental security income) because Section 1383(c)(3)

provides that “[t]he final determination of the Commissioner

of Social Security after a hearing under paragraph (1) shall

be subject to judicial review as provided in section 405(g) of

this title to the same extent as the Commissioner’s final

determinations under section 405 of this title.”

2

Defendant states that the ALJ will update the records from

Plaintiff’s treating medical sources and obtain a current

orthopedic examination with x-rays and a medical source

statement about what Plaintiff can do despite her impairment.

Moreover, Defendant states that the ALJ will further evaluate

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; obtain evidence from a

medical expert, an orthopedist specialist, at the hearing;

obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert, if

needed; and address any specific limitations Plaintiff may have

on using her upper extremities. Further, Defendant states that

Plaintiff’s counsel has been contacted and there is no objection

to the motion to remand. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the language of

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)1 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

Case 1:05-cv-00191-CG-B Document 15 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 5
3

cause for a rehearing,” the undersigned recommends that

Defendant’s motion to remand be GRANTED, that the Court enter

judgment reversing the decision of the Commissioner and

remanding this cause to the Commissioner for action consistent

with the Defendant’s motion to remand. 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 the report and recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge. 

DONE this 20th day of October 2005. 

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00191-CG-B Document 15 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 5
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)(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 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.

FED. R. CIV. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

Case 1:05-cv-00191-CG-B Document 15 Filed 10/20/05 Page 4 of 5
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 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 1:05-cv-00191-CG-B Document 15 Filed 10/20/05 Page 5 of 5