Duncan v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. North Carolina

Duncan v. Commissioner of Social Security

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedApril 4, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00601

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Duncan v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D.N.C. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:22-cv-00601-WCM

JOHNNY KING DUNCAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ) v. ) ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on the following: 1. “Plaintiff’s Social Security Brief,” which has been filed as a Motion (Doc. 10); and 2. The Commissioner’s Motion for Remand (the “Motion to Remand,” Doc. 13).1 Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a court has the authority “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 299 (1993). Remand for further proceedings is the proper action in any case

1 The parties have consented for a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including entering a final judgment. Doc. 11. that requires further fact finding. See Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 707 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Assessing the probative value of competing evidence is quintessentially the role of the fact finder. We cannot undertake it in the first instance. Therefore, we must remand the case for further fact finding”). Here, the Commissioner asks the Court to remand the case for further administrative proceedings, and Plaintiff consents. Doc. 13 at 12. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Commissioner’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 13) is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 2. “Plaintiff's Social Security Brief,” which has been filed as a Motion (Doc. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter a separate judgment of remand and to close this case.

Signed: April 3, 2023

W. Carleton Metcalf py United States Magistrate Judge + AM J

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:22-cv-00601-WCM

JOHNNY KING DUNCAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ) v. ) ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on the following: 1. “Plaintiff’s Social Security Brief,” which has been filed as a Motion (Doc. 10); and 2. The Commissioner’s Motion for Remand (the “Motion to Remand,” Doc. 13).1 Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a court has the authority “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 299 (1993). Remand for further proceedings is the proper action in any case

1 The parties have consented for a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including entering a final judgment. Doc. 11. that requires further fact finding. See Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 707 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Assessing the probative value of competing evidence is quintessentially the role of the fact finder. We cannot undertake it in the first instance. Therefore, we must remand the case for further fact finding”). Here, the Commissioner asks the Court to remand the case for further administrative proceedings, and Plaintiff consents. Doc. 13 at 12. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Commissioner’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 13) is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 2. “Plaintiff's Social Security Brief,” which has been filed as a Motion (Doc. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter a separate judgment of remand and to close this case.

Signed: April 3, 2023

W. Carleton Metcalf py United States Magistrate Judge + AM J

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Duncan v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ncwd-2023.

Opinion

W. Carleton Metcalf py United States Magistrate Judge + AM J

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack