From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woods v. Apfel

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Aug 18, 2000
CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-0640-P-S (S.D. Ala. Aug. 18, 2000)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-0640-P-S

August 18, 2000


JUDGEMENT


In accordance with this court's Order entered this date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), and terminates this Court's jurisdiction over this matter.

ORDER MODIFYING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before this court is Defendant's Objections To The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated April 19, 2000. The Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff's action be remanded to the Commissioner for a determination, after consideration of such evidence as the parties may submit, whether plaintiff's mental impairment prevented him from understanding and pursuing his administrative remedies following the denial of his prior applications for benefits (doc. 12, p. 8, ¶ 2).

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is due to be adopted as modified as the opinion of this court. The modification is as follows.

At page 8, ¶ 2, line 4, add the following sentence: The remand is pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings, and as such, makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), and terminates this court's jurisdiction over this matter.

With this modification and after due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be ADOPTED, as MODIFIED above, as the opinion of this court, and that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings not inconsistent with the court's opinion. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292.


Summaries of

Woods v. Apfel

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Aug 18, 2000
CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-0640-P-S (S.D. Ala. Aug. 18, 2000)
Case details for

Woods v. Apfel

Case Details

Full title:CLAUDE J. WOODS, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Aug 18, 2000

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-0640-P-S (S.D. Ala. Aug. 18, 2000)

Citing Cases

Byrd v. Colvin

"[F]ederal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review a denial of a request to reopen except where:…