Opinion
Case No. 6:15-cv-703-Orl-18JSS
09-03-2015
JORGE RAFAEL RIVERA MARRERO, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Copies furnished to: The Honorable G. Kendall Sharp Counsel of Record
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR REMAND UNDER SENTENCE SIX OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Remand under Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Dkt. 12.) Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, advises that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") referenced and relied on evidence that pertained to another person in the decision. Therefore, the Commissioner requests a remand under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to remove the evidence from the administrative record, clarify whether other evidence relates to Plaintiff, and correct the administrative record as appropriate. Plaintiff has no objection. (Dkt. 12.)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court may remand a case to the Commissioner of Social Security on motion of the Commissioner made for "good cause shown" before the Commissioner files his or her answer. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under the circumstances stated above, the Court finds that good cause exists to remand the case under sentence six. Accordingly, it is
RECOMMENDED:
1. The Commissioner's Unopposed Motion for Remand under Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Dkt. 12) be GRANTED.
2. The case be REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Motion.
3. The Court retain jurisdiction in this matter.
4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close the case and withhold entry of a final judgment.
IT IS SO REPORTED in Tampa, Florida on September 3, 2015.
/s/_________
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation may be filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and M.D. Fla. R. 6.02 within fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and Recommendation. The parties may seek an extension of time to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation, provided they do so before the deadline for filing written objections passes. Failure to file timely objections shall bar the party from a de novo determination by a district judge and from challenging on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the appellate court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Copies furnished to: The Honorable G. Kendall Sharp
Counsel of Record