IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROYCE STERLING RITCHESON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 24-cv-1856-RJD
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL )
SECURITY, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:1
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand to the
Commissioner. (Doc. 20).
The parties ask that this case be remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence four remand (as opposed to a sentence six remand) depends
upon a finding of error and is itself a final, appealable order. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S.
89 (1991); Perlman v. Swiss Bank Corporation Comprehensive Disability Protection Plan, 195
F.3d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 1999). Upon a sentence four remand, judgment should be entered in favor
of plaintiff. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993).
For good cause shown, the Agreed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner (Doc. 20) is
GRANTED. On remand, an Administrative Law Judge will hold a hearing, proceed through the
sequential disability evaluation process as appropriate, and issue a new decision. Plaintiff applied
1 This matter was assigned to the undersigned through the parties’ consent to conduct all proceedings, including trial
and final entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. (Doc. 10).
for benefits on March 29, 2022. (Tr. 21). While recognizing that the agency has a full docket, the
Court urges the Commissioner to expedite this case on remand.
The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application
for social security benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for rehearing
and reconsideration of the evidence, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. All pending deadlines
are moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 4, 2025
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.