UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRANDON A.,

1

 Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO J. KIJAKAZI, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

Case No. 22-cv-3863-RMM

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Brandon A. (“Mr. A.”) brought this case seeking judicial review of a decision of 

the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) to deny his Disability Insurance

Benefits. See Compl. ¶¶ 3–6, ECF No. 1. He moved for entry of a judgment reversing the 

Commissioner’s decision or, in the alternative, remanding the decision for further administrative 

proceedings, on the theory that the Commissioner’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and 

was not supported by substantial evidence. See Mot. for J. of Reversal, ECF No. 10. Rather than 

respond to Mr. A.’s motion, the Commissioner filed a Motion to Remand, requesting that the 

Court remand Mr. A.’s claim “so that the Commissioner may remand the claim to an 

administrative law judge to hold a new hearing and issue a new decision.” Mot. for Remand at 

1, ECF No. 12. Mr. A. does not oppose the Commissioner’s motion. See id.

1 Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in keeping with the recommendation of the 

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the 

United States. See Mem. from Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chair, Comm. on Ct. Admin. & Case 

Mgmt., to Chief Judges of the U.S. Cts. of Appeals, Chief Judges of the U.S. Dist. Cts., Clerks of 

the U.S. Cts. of Appeals, and Clerks of the U.S. Dist. Cts. (May 1, 2018), available at

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-ap-c-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf.
2

This Court has “the power 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” pursuant to the fourth sentence of 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand is appropriate only in conjunction with a final 

judgment on the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 

89, 99–100 (1991). For that reason, a “substantive ruling on the correctness of [the 

Commissioner’s] decision” is a “necessary prerequisite to a sentence-four remand.” Krishnan v. 

Barnhart, 328 F.3d 685, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98–101).

The Commissioner has conceded that her decision was incorrect in this matter. Under 

this Court’s local rules, when an argument is advanced in support of a motion and the opposing 

party fails to counter the argument in a timely opposition brief, the court may treat the argument 

as conceded, even if the result is dismissal of the entire case. See Local Civil Rule 7(b); 

Stephenson v. Cox, 223 F. Supp. 2d 119, 121 (D.D.C. 2002) (collecting cases); Bancoult v. 

McNamara, 227 F. Supp. 2d 144, 149 (D.D.C. 2002) (same). The Commissioner’s response to 

Mr. A.’s Motion for Judgment of Reversal was due by June 12, 2023. See April 24, 2023 Min. 

Order. The Commissioner has not filed an opposition. She has thus conceded the arguments in 

Mr. A.’s motion and brief in support.

Judge James E. Boasberg referred this case to the undersigned for all purposes. See April 

24, 2023 Min Order. For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. A.’s

Motion for Judgment of Reversal is GRANTED. Consistent with sentence four of Section 

405(g) and the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for remand, it is further ORDERED that the 
3

Commissioner’s Motion for Remand is GRANTED, and this matter shall be REMANDED for 

further administrative proceedings.

Date: June 14, 2023

ROBIN M. MERIWEATHER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE