IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAKEISA GRIFFIN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0189-WS-C

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner’s unopposed motion to 

reverse and remand this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (see Doc. 

17), filed December 16, 2015.

1 In her motion, the Acting Commissioner represents that it 

is her belief that this case should be remanded for further administrative proceedings 

but does not state the specific grounds upon which the request for remand is based (see 

id. at 1-2 (noting only that, on remand, the final decision will be vacated and a new 

decision issued)); therefore, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court order the 

Commissioner, on remand, to direct the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to 

Ms. Griffin’s case to address all issues identified by plaintiff in her brief (see Doc. 14), as 

well as any other issues raised by plaintiff on remand.

In light of the foregoing, and the plain language of sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §

405(g) empowering this Court “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the 

record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner 

 1 The Commissioner represents that counsel for the plaintiff has no opposition to 

this motion. (See id. at 2.)

Case 1:15-cv-00189-WS-C Document 18 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 3
2

of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing[,]” it is 

RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s motion (Doc. 17) be GRANTED, and that 

the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff benefits be 

reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. 

Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), for further proceedings not 

inconsistent with this decision. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes 

plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 

2412, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 112 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and 

terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in 

it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 

72(b)(2); S.D.Ala. GenLR 72(c)(1). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit 

Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was 

informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to 

object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal 

for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

Case 1:15-cv-00189-WS-C Document 18 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing 

before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this the 21st day of December, 2015. 

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00189-WS-C Document 18 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 3