IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

MARK PARSONS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-324-MJT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING 

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REVERSE AND REMAND

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a decision of the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereafter “Commissioner”) denying an 

application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. 

I. Proceedings

The Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on August 31, 2023. (Doc. #1.) The Commissioner 

filed an Answer on November 29, 2023. (Doc. #8.) The Plaintiff filed a brief on January 26, 2024,

arguing:

1. The ALJ’s RFC is not supported by substantial evidence because he rejected 

every medical opinion and formulated Parsons’s RFC without the assistance of a 

medical opinion in violation of Ripley.

2. The ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because 6,000 jobs 

nationally is not a significant number of jobs.

(Doc. #14.) On May 21, 2024, the Commissioner filed an “Unopposed Motion to Remand for 

further Administrative Proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g).” (Doc. #23.)

Case 1:23-cv-00324-MJT-CLS Document 24 Filed 05/21/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

2121
2

II. The Commissioner’s Motion

The Commissioner moves for reversal and remand under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 

§405(g), which provides: “The court shall have 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.”

The Commissioner requests that, upon remand, the administrative law judge should offer 

the plaintiff a new de novo administrative hearing. 

The pending motion for sentence four reversal and remand was filed after the 

Commissioner’s answer. After considering the pleadings, the court may order a sentence four 

remand in conjunction with a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the 

Commissioner. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Therefore, a sentence four remand is appropriate at this 

stage of the proceedings. Furthermore, the motion is favorable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is 

unopposed, and the Commissioner has shown good cause. Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion 

to remand under sentence four should be granted.

III. Recommendations

Defendant’s “Unopposed Motion to Remand for further Administrative Proceedings 

pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g)” (doc. #23) should be granted. The 

Commissioner’s decision should be reversed, and this action remanded for further administrative 

proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. The Administrative Law Judge should offer 

the Plaintiff a new de novo administrative hearing. 

IV. Objections

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), each party to this action has the right to file objections 

to this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must: (1) be in writing, (2) specifically 

Case 1:23-cv-00324-MJT-CLS Document 24 Filed 05/21/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

2122
3

identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, and (3) be served and filed 

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(c) (2009); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a 

de novo determination by the United States district judge of those proposed findings 

and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(2009); FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 

A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy 

of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States district 

judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–

77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such 

findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States district judge, see Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, at 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 21st day of May, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00324-MJT-CLS Document 24 Filed 05/21/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

2123