Richardson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
TRAVISR., 1 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
No. 4:25-CV-935-P-BV
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED ST ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Under Special Order 3-350, this case was automatically referred to the
undersigned magistrate judge. See Dkt. No. 6. 	For the reasons explained below, the
magistrate judge recommends that the United States District Judge GRANT the
Commissioner's motion to reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remand this case for further proceedings.
1. 	The Commissioner seeks remand under the fourth sentence.
Section 405(g) permits two types of remand orders-orders under the fourth
sentence and orders under the sixth sentence. Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98
(1991). The Commissioner seeks remand under the fourth sentence, which "authorizes a
court to enter 'a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
[Commissioner], with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing,"' based on the
pleadings and transcript of the record. Id. (quoting§ 405(g)). "[A] sentence four remand
1 For privacy reasons, Plaintiff is identified only by first name and last initial.
Case 4:25-cv-00935-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

requires the district court to enter a decision on the merits before remanding a case to the
Commissioner." Schriner v. Comm 'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:08-CV-2042-N (BF),
2010 WL 2941120, at *15 (N.D. Tex. June 22, 2010) (citing Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98),
R. & R. adopted by 2010 WL 2944782 (N.D. Tex. July 22, 2010).
Here, Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred by: (1) failing to adopt or explain the
rejection of limitations offered by medical sources whose opinions the ALJ found
persuasive; and (2) failing to provide legally sufficient reasons for the social-interaction
findings. 	Dkt. No. 13 at 2. 	Without specifying his agreement for one or both points of
error, the Commissioner moves under sentence four for the Court "to enter a judgment
with reversal and remand of the cause to the Commissioner" so that an ALJ can "offer the
claimant an opportunity for a hearing and issue a decision." Dkt. No. 16 at 1; see also
Dkt. No. 10. Given the Commissioner's motion, remand under sentence four of 405(g) is
appropriate. See Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617,625 (1990) (providing that under
sentence four, a district court may remand a case for rehearing and "such a remand order
is a 'judgment' in the terminology of§ 405(g)").
2. 	The Court should grant the Commissioner's motion.
The undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge GRANT the
Commissioner's unopposed motion, REVERSE the Commissioner's decision, and
REMAND the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings in
accordance with sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
2
Case 4:25-cv-00935-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3. 	The parties have the right to object.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation will be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within
fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) (2016); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding, conclusion,
or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to
file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the
district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996)
Dated: December£, 2025.
AMANO 'AMY' R. BURCH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Case 4:25-cv-00935-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>