Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
P.A.J.
VERSUS
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-491
SECTION "H" (3)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Claimant 	seeks 	judicial 	review 	of 	a 	final 	decision 	the 	Social 	Security
Administration (the “SSA”) denying her applications for disability insurance benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act.1 The SSA, through Commissioner Frank
Bisignano (the “Commissioner”),2 has filed an unopposed motion (R. Doc. 24) to
reverse that final decision and remand Claimant's claims to the SSA for further
administrative proceedings. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends
that the Motion be granted and that a judgment be entered reversing the challenged
decision and remanding the above-captioned action, as requested, under the fourth
sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
I. 	Law and Analysis
Sentence four of § 405(g) authorizes federal district courts 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
1 R. Doc. 1; see also R. Doc. 15.
2 Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 6, 2025.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Bisignano
should be substituted as the defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken
to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of Section 205(g) of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Case 2:25-cv-00491-JTM Document 25 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
cause for a rehearing.” See also Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991). A
sentence-four remand order “terminates the litigation with victory for the plaintiff”
and constitutes a final judgment on the remanded claims, divesting the district court
of jurisdiction thereover once issued. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300–01
(1993). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained that
sentence four “grants district courts ‘wide discretion’ to remand a case for further
proceedings[,]” and regularly affirms sentence-four remand orders where “important
and unresolved aspects of [the plaintiff]’s claim should first be addressed by the
administrative law judge.” Davis v. Colvin, 603 F. App’x 257, 258 (5th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Bordelon v. Barnhart, 161 F. App’x. 348, 352–53 n.12 (5th Cir. 2005)).
Accordingly, reversal of the Commissioner’s denial of benefits and remand for further
proceedings is appropriate under sentence four of § 405(g) when the administrative
record is insufficient to support that denial and further fact-finding is necessary for
statutorily adequate resolution of the plaintiff’s claims. See Sullivan v. Finkelstein,
496 U.S. 617, 626 (1990).
Here, the Commissioner requests remand and states that the SSA will offer
Plaintiff the opportunity for a new hearing on her applications.3 Based on this
effective concession that the record before the Court remains insufficient to support
the SSA’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s applications for social security benefits,
reversal of that decision and remand for further proceedings is appropriate.
3 R. Doc. 24.
Case 2:25-cv-00491-JTM Document 25 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
II. 	Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for
Entry of Judgment with Remand (R. Doc. 24) be GRANTED, and judgment be
entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDING the case
for further administrative proceedings.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds
of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings
and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been
served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13 th day of January, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00491-JTM Document 25 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3