Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00236/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00236-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Karen King
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KAREN KING O/B/O B. KING, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * Civil Action 07-0236-CG-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. 15). This action was referred to the undersigned

for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

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. 15).

Specifically, Defendant states that on remand, the Appeals Council

“will remand this case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who

will be directed to conduct a supplemental hearing and allow

Plaintiff the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Davis, the

psychologist who authored a post-hearing consultative report.”

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

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

Case 1:07-cv-00236-CG-B Document 16 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 3
1

Although 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

relief sought in Defendant’s motion. (Id. at 2).

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 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).

DONE this 16th day of August, 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00236-CG-B Document 16 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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 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 1:07-cv-00236-CG-B Document 16 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3