Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL KRATZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:11cv264/MCR/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action was initiated under the Social Security Act to obtain judicial review of the

Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits (doc. 1). Now before the court

is the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (doc. 4). 

The Commissioner has certified that Plaintiff has no objection to this motion (see doc. 4).

Sentence six remands may be granted on the Commissioner’s motion before an answer is

filed for good cause or, alternatively, upon a showing that there is new, material evidence and good

cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501

U.S. 89, 100, 111 S. Ct. 2157, 115 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1991) (explaining the difference between sentence

four and sentence six remands under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). In the instant case, the Commissioner has

not yet filed an answer and seeks remand for further administrative proceedings (doc. 4 at 1). In

support, the Commissioner states that the Appeals Council has determined that remand is necessary

because the recording of Plaintiff’s administrative hearing, held February 26, 2010, cannot be

transcribed, and thus a de novo hearing is necessary (id. at 1–2).

Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that good cause has been shown for

the requested remand.

Case 3:11-cv-00264-MCR-EMT Document 5 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Commissioner’s motion to remand (doc. 4) be GRANTED.

2 That this cause be REMANDED to the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings

in accordance with this Report and Recommendation. As the court retains jurisdiction of this case

during the period of remand, judgment should not be entered at this time. 

3. That the Commissioner be required to advise the court of the status of these

proceedings SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date an order adopting this Report and Recommendation

is entered and every forty-five (45) days thereafter.

4. That the clerk be directed to administratively close this file.

At Pensacola, Florida this 10th day of August 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within ten

days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the

electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy of objections

shall be served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. Failure to object may limit

the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts,

858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No.: 3:11cv264/MCR/EMT

Case 3:11-cv-00264-MCR-EMT Document 5 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 2