Pope v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
LEONA A. POPE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 6:25-cv-06048-MEF
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Leona Pope (“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 her application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 2). The parties have
consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case, and
pursuant to said authority, the Court issues this Order. (ECF No. 6).
In lieu of an answer, the Commissioner filed the Social Security Transcript on August 6,
2025, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and
were conclusive. (ECF No. 9). See FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP SS RULE 4. On January 29, 2026, 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. 18).
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
Case 6:25-cv-06048-MEF Document 19 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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.” 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 Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Remand is hereby GRANTED, and
the case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to “sentence
four” of section 405(g).
DATED this 2nd day of February 2026.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-06048-MEF Document 19 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>