HOWARD v. SAUL

E.D. Pennsylvania

HOWARD v. SAUL

DecidedOctober 20, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-04412

StatusUnknown

This text of HOWARD v. SAUL (HOWARD v. SAUL) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

HOWARD v. SAUL, (E.D. Pa. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEROY HOWARD, Jr., : Plaintiff, : : v. : NO. 20-CV-4412-RAL : KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting : Commissioner of Social Security, : Defendant. O R D E R AND NOW this 20th day of October, 2021, upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Request for Review (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED, and the matter is REMANDED in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously with this Order; 2. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED by separate document, filed contemporaneously. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 303 (1993); Kadelski v. Sullivan, 30 F.3d 399, 402 (3d Cir. 1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). 3. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for all purposes including statistics.

_s/ Richard A. Lloret ________ HON. RICHARD A. LLORET United States Magistrate Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEROY HOWARD, Jr., : Plaintiff, : : v. : NO. 20-CV-4412-RAL : KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting : Commissioner of Social Security, : Defendant. O R D E R AND NOW this 20th day of October, 2021, upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Request for Review (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED, and the matter is REMANDED in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously with this Order; 2. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED by separate document, filed contemporaneously. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 303 (1993); Kadelski v. Sullivan, 30 F.3d 399, 402 (3d Cir. 1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). 3. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for all purposes including statistics.

_s/ Richard A. Lloret ________ HON. RICHARD A. LLORET United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HOWARD v. SAUL, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-saul-paed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack