IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION

MATTHEW S. CONNOLLY PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 3:23-cv-03001-MEF

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Matthew S. Connolly, Plaintiff, brings this action pursuant to

(g) seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying his application for supplemental security income. (ECF No. 2). On March 31, 2023, before answering Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion requesting that Plaintiff’s case be remanded pursuant to “sentence six” of section 405(g) to allow further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 9). The exclusive methods by which a district court may remand a social security case to the Commissioner are set forth in “sentence four” and “sentence six” of

(g). A remand pursuant to “sentence six” is limited to two situations: where the Commissioner requests a remand before answering the complaint, or where the court orders the Commissioner to consider new, material evidence that was for good cause not presented before the agency. The Fourth sentence of the statute provides that “[t]he court shall have power 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.”

(g); Shalala v. Schaefer,

(1993). Here, we find remand is appropriate to allow the Defendant to conduct further administrative proceedings regarding this matter. Therefore, the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to “sentence six” of section 405(g). DATED this 3rd day of April 2023. Mark E. Ford /s/ HON. MARK E. FORD CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE