United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
March 2, 2015
STEPHANIE ANN DIXON, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN COLVIN Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
Pending now before this Court is Defendant's Motion to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Six of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act. ECF No. 9. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred this Motion to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court enters the following report and recommendation.
On August 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter. ECF No. 1. Defendant has not filed an answer. On January 27, 2015, Defendant filed the present Motion to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Six of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act. ECF No. 9. With this Motion, Defendant seeks a remand in order for the SSA to take "further administrative action." Id. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's request to remand this action.
2. Applicable Law
Pursuant to Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a federal district court is permitted, on a motion of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), to remand a case for further administrative review. Such a remand is a "Sentence Six" remand. Id. The requirements for this remand are the following: (1) the motion must be made by the SSA before its answer; and (2) the motion must be based upon "good cause." Id.
In the present action, the SSA has not answered, and the SSA made this motion to remand. ECF No. 9. Therefore, the first requirement of the Sentence Six remand is met. Second, the SSA has demonstrated there is "good cause" for this remand by stating that a remand is necessary "for further administrative action." Id. Specially, Defendant states remand is necessary because significant portions of the recording of the hearing held on January 17, 2013 are inaudible. Plaintiff does not dispute this reasoning and does not dispute Defendant's claim that there is good cause for a remand. Thus, the second requirement of a Sentence Six remand is met. Accordingly, because both the requirements for a Sentence Six remand are met and because Plaintiff has no objections to this remand, this Court recommends Plaintiff's case should be remanded pursuant to Sentence Six.
Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends Defendant's Motion to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Six of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (ECF No. 9) be GRANTED.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).