Petersen v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

2:25-cv-02088Arwd15.01.2026

Gesamter Gesetzestext

Case 2:25-cv-02088-TLB Document 15 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
Case 2:25-cv-02088-TLB Document 15 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:25-cv-02088-TLB Document15 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION

KATHY PETERSON PLAINTIFF
VS. Civil No. 2:25-cv-02088
FRANK BISIGNANO, DEFENDANT

Commissioner, Social Security Administration

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Reversal and Remand and Brief in
Support. ECF Nos. 13, 14. Plaintiff has no objections to this Motion. Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks referred this case to
this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that
referral, this Court enters the following report and recommendation.

Defendant requests Plaintiff's case be remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) so the Commissioner can conduct further proceedings. ECF No. 13. According to the
Motion, counsel for Defendant conferred with Plaintiff's counsel, and Plaintiff does not oppose
the granting of this Motion. Jd.

Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for
Reversal and Remand (ECF No. 13) be GRANTED, and Plaintiffs case be reversed and remanded
to the Social Security Administration for further administrative review pursuant to Sentence Four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 2:25-cv-02088-TLB Document15 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #:
<pagelD>
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8" Cir. 1990).

ENTERED this 15" day of January 2026.

(si Spencer G, Singleton

HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.