IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

QUYANCE ANDERSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0140-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. 

15), filed October 19, 2015.

1 In her motion, the Acting Commissioner represents that it is 

her belief that this case is indefensible in its present posture and should be remanded 

for further administrative proceedings but does not state the specific grounds upon 

which the request for remand is based (id. at 1-2); therefore, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS that the Court order the Commissioner, on remand, to direct the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to Ms. Anderson’s case to address all issues 

identified by plaintiff in her brief (see Doc. 11), 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 

the relief requested in the motion. (See id. at 1.)

Case 1:15-cv-00140-WS-C Document 16 Filed 10/20/15 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. 15) 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); S.D.ALA. L.R. 72.4. 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 Magistrate Judge’s report and 

Case 1:15-cv-00140-WS-C Document 16 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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 20th day of October, 2015. 

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00140-WS-C Document 16 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 3