James v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
AARON J. JAMES 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 2:25-cv-02097-TLB-MEF
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Aaron James (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial
review 	of 	a 	decision 	of 	the 	Commissioner 	of 	the 	Social 	Security 	Administration 	(the
“Commissioner”) denying his application for disability benefits. 	(ECF No. 2). 	This matter is
presently before the undersigned for report and recommendation.
In lieu of an answer, the Commissioner filed the Social Security Transcript on October 31,
2025, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and
were conclusive. (ECF No. 6). See FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP SS R ULE 4. On December 3, 2025, having
changed positions, the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion requesting that Plaintiff’s case
be remanded pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g) to conduct further administrative
proceedings. (ECF No. 10).
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 42 U.S.C. § 405(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
Case 2:25-cv-02097-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Shalala
v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 (1993). 	The Supreme Court has held that a remand for further
administrative proceedings, such as the remand requested here, is a sentence four remand within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1991).
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to
Remand be granted, and the case remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action
pursuant to “sentence four” of section 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
written 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.
DATED this 4th day of December 2025.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02097-TLB Document 12 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>