Murdock v. Saul ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION 5:20-cv-00199-WCM MICHAEL DALE MURDOCK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________ ) This matter is before the Court on the following: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21); and 2. The Commissioner’s “Motion for Reversal and Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)” (the “Motion to Remand,” Doc. 24).1 Under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the 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, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 2630-31, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993). Remand for 1 Pursuant to the parties’ consent, this matter has been referred to the undersigned for any and all proceedings in this case, including entry of a final judgment. Docs. 15 & 17. further proceedings is proper in a case that requires additional 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 asserts that “further fact-finding and analysis is required” and represents that Plaintiff’s counsel consents to the relief requested. Doc. 24 at 1. Accordingly, the undersigned will grant the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand. The undersigned does not, though, forecast a decision on the merits of Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. See Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin., 846 F.3d 656, 663 (4th Cir. 2017). “Under § 405(g), ‘each final decision of the Secretary [is] reviewable by a separate piece of litigation,’ and a sentence-four remand order ‘terminate[s] the civil action’ seeking judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision.” Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. at 299 (quoting Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 629, 110 S.Ct. 2658, 2666, 110 L.Ed.2d 563 (1990)). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Motion for Reversal and Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 24) is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for a new hearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed: January 6, 2022 oJ W. Carleton Metcalf Ke United States Magistrate Judge all J