Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00025/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Demetrice L. Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEMETRICE L. WILLIAMS, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

CIVIL ACTION 05-0025-P-M

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : 

Acting Commissioner of

Social Security, : 

Defendant. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff seeks

judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which

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

Defendant has filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment Under

Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand of the Cause

to the Defendant (Doc. 13). Defendant has stated that

Plaintiff’s attorney has no objection to the motion (Doc. 13,

p. 2).

Defendant states that 

[o]n remand by the Court, the Appeals

Council will vacate the September 24, 2002

administrative decision and direct the

[Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter

ALJ)] to conduct a de novo hearing in

accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 416.1429

(2005), in which Plaintiff has the

opportunity to testify. The ALJ will

determine whether Plaintiff has a severe

medically determinable severe [sic]

impairment and will reevaluate Plaintiff’s

maximum residual functional capacity. The

Case 1:05-cv-00025-P-M Document 14 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 4
2

ALJ will also fully evaluate Plaintiff’s

credibility in accordance with the

regulations and Social Security Ruling 96-

7, based on all of the evidence, providing

a clear rationale in support of the

credibility finding. 

(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 recommended, without objection from

Plaintiff, that Defendant’s motion to remand under sentence

four be granted, that the Court enter a judgment reversing the

decision of the Commissioner, 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.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

Case 1:05-cv-00025-P-M Document 14 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 4
3

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)©); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B,

1982)(en banc). 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 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. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Case 1:05-cv-00025-P-M Document 14 Filed 08/22/05 Page 3 of 4
4

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.

DONE this 22nd day of August, 2005. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00025-P-M Document 14 Filed 08/22/05 Page 4 of 4