IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARY A. LASKEY, *

 Plaintiff, * 

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00097-CG-B

*

 *

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, *

Commissioner of Social Security,*

 *

Defendant. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed 

Motion to Remand pursuant to “sentence four” of 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). (Doc. 13). This Motion has been referred to the 

undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(3). Upon 

consideration of all matters presented, the undersigned 

recommends that the cause be REMANDED to the Commissioner for a 

new determination.

A review of the pleadings in this case reveals that 

Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 5, 2014, alleging that “the 

decision by the Administrative Law Judge (herein ‘the ALJ’) to 

deny the plaintiff benefits is not supported by substantial 

evidence” and, further, that “the decision of the Appeals 

Council to deny review of the decision of the ALJ, based upon 

the record as a whole, including evidence submitted to the 

Case 1:14-cv-00097-CG-B Document 14 Filed 08/19/14 Page 1 of 3
2

Appeals Council, is erroneous and amounts to an error of law.” 

(Doc. 1 at 2). In response, the Government filed an answer on 

June 5, 2014, denying Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint. 

(Doc. 10). However, in the instant motion, the Government

states that this matter should be remanded to the Commissioner 

of Social Security for further administrative proceedings

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 

Plaintiff agrees. (Doc. 13). The Court finds that implicit in 

the Government’s request for remand is its acknowledgement that 

the administrative decision denying benefits should be reversed, 

and this matter remanded for further administrative proceedings 

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the 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 of Social Security, with or without remanding the 

cause for a rehearing,” the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the 

Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Remand be GRANTED, and that this 

Court enter judgment reversing and remanding this cause to the 

Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 101 111 S. Ct. 

2157, 115 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1991).

Case 1:14-cv-00097-CG-B Document 14 Filed 08/19/14 Page 2 of 3
3

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); S.D. Ala. L.R.

72.4. The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit 

precedent, “the failure to object limits the scope of [] 

appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judge’s 

factual findings.” Dupree v. Warden, Attorney General, State of 

Alabama, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2011). 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 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 19th day of August, 2014.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00097-CG-B Document 14 Filed 08/19/14 Page 3 of 3