IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELINDA YORK, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 19-0778-MU

ANDREW M. SAUL, : Commissioner of Social Security, : Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court1 on the Commissioner’s unopposed motion to reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and remand this action for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). (See Doc. 15). In his motion, the Commissioner represents that it is his belief that this case should be remanded for further administrative proceedings: “On remand, the Administrative Law Judge will reassess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and in so doing, reevaluate the opinion of Andre Fontana, M.D.; and, if warranted, obtain supplemental vocational evidence.” (Id. at 1).2 Given this representation and the plain language of sentence four of

The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to

(c), for all proceedings in this Court. (Doc. 16 (“In accordance with provisions of

(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case, . . . order the entry of a final judgment, and conduct all post-judgment proceedings.”); see also Doc. 17 (endorsed order of reference)).

2 Counsel for the defendant advised Plaintiff’s counsel, Byron A. Lassiter, Esquire, of the contours of the motion and was advised that Plaintiff would interpose no objection to the requested relief. (See

). 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 Commissioner’s unopposed motion to remand (Doc. 15) is GRANTED and it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff benefits be reversed

and remanded pursuant to sentence four of

(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan,

,

,

(1991), for further proceedings consistent 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,

, see Shalala v. Schaefer,

,

,

(1993), and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. DONE this the 31st day of January, 2020. s/P. Bradley Murray UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2