United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 2025

Blake v. Commissioner of Social Security

Blake v. Commissioner of Social Security
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · Decided September 16, 2025
Blake v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION AJAYA JASMINE BLAKE, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 8:25-cv-1006-MSS-AAS FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. _____________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) moves to remand this case for further action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 15).

This request is unopposed. (Id. at p. 1).

The Commissioner requests remand with entry of judgment for these reasons: On remand, the Commissioner will conduct further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). Specifically, Plaintiff will be offered a new hearing. (Id.). The request for remand is made under Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g). This section of the Social Security Act provides, “The 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], with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991).

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand (Doc. 15) be GRANTED.

ENTERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 16, 2025.

Aranda. Arne ih Sane.

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE TO PARTIES The parties have fourteen days from the date they are served a copy of this report to file written objections to this report’s proposed findings and recommendations or to seek an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. A party’s failure to object timely in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives that party’s right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order adopting this report’s unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions. 11th Cir. R. 3-1.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.