Andrews v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas
DecidedMay 13, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-02031
StatusUnknown

This text of Andrews v. Social Security Administration Commissioner (Andrews v. Social Security Administration Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Andrews v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, (W.D. Ark. 2025).

Opinion

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

KATHY JO ANDREWS PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 2:25-cv-02031

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. 10, 11. Plaintiff has no objections to this Motion. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey 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. 10. Plaintiff does not oppose the granting of this Motion. Id. Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Reversal and Remand (ECF No. 10) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s 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 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 (8th Cir. 1990). ENTERED this 13th day of May 2025.

Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Andrews v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-social-security-administration-commissioner-arwd-2025.