1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

NOIRAH M.,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

4:23CV3093

ORDER REVERSING COMMISSIONER 

AND REMANDING CASE PURSUANT 

TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(G)

This action for judicial review of the administrative denial of social security disability 

insurance benefits is before the Court on the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and 

Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Filing 19. The Commissioner states,

The Commissioner requests the Court to remand this case to allow the 

Commissioner to conduct further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). On remand, the 

case will be assigned to a different administrative law judge (ALJ) [who] will offer 

Plaintiff the opportunity for a new hearing, take further action to complete the 

administrative record, and issue a new decision.

Filing 20 at 1. The Commissioner’s counsel represents that he has conferred with Plaintiff’s 

counsel regarding this Motion and that she does not oppose it. Filing 19 at 1.

Sentence four of the statutory provision states, “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “Remand under sentence four terminates the court’s jurisdiction, 

while remand under sentence six does not.” Travis v. Astrue, 477 F.3d 1037, 1039 (8th Cir. 2007)

(citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301 (1993)). Indeed, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 

has explained,

4:23-cv-03093-BCB-CRZ Doc # 21 Filed: 11/15/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 1278
2

According to the Supreme Court, “[i]mmediate entry of judgment ... is in fact the 

principal feature that distinguishes a sentence-four remand from a sentence-six 

remand.” Shalala, 509 U.S. at 297, 113 S.Ct. 2625 (citing Melkonyan [v. Sullivan], 

501 U.S. [89,] 101–02, 111 S.Ct. 2157 [(1991)]). A substantive ruling on the merits 

of the case is a second factor distinguishing sentence-four from sentence-six 

remands. Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98, 111 S.Ct. 2157 (recognizing that in the case 

of sentence-six remands, “[t]he district court does not affirm, modify, or reverse the 

[Commissioner’s] decision; it does not rule in any way as to the correctness of the 

administrative determination”); Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 

2000) (citing Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98, 111 S.Ct. 2157).

Pottsmith v. Barnhart, 306 F.3d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 2002). Thus, where the district court makes a 

ruling reversing and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings, the remand “fits 

squarely within the definition of a sentence-four remand.” Id. That is the situation in this case, 

where the Court now reverses the Commissioner’s administrative decision and remands the case 

to the Commissioner for further proceedings. As the statute indicates and the Commissioner 

requests, a separate judgment pursuant to this order is appropriate. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);

Pottsmith, 306 F.3d at 528; Filing 20 at 3.

Upon the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand 

Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Filing 19, is granted, the administrative decision 

of the Commissioner on the claimant’s application for social security disability benefits is 

reversed, and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a separate Judgment shall enter accordingly.

Dated this 15th day of November, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________ 

Brian C. Buescher 

United States District Judge

4:23-cv-03093-BCB-CRZ Doc # 21 Filed: 11/15/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 1279