REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS1

SHARON L. OVINGTON, District Judge.

This previously dismissed social security case returns to this Court while it is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.2 The case is presently pending here on Defendant's Unopposed Rule 62.1(a)(3) Motion For Indicative Ruling On A Motion For Relief That Is Barred By A Pending Appeal. (Doc. #19). Defendant asks this Court to indicate whether it is inclined to grant relief from its March 2, 2016 judgment entry, in the event the Sixth Circuit remands the case for that purpose. The March 2, 2016 judgment entry documented this Court's decision to affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying Plaintiff's applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. See Doc. #s 13-16.

Plaintiff's presently pending appeal in the Sixth Circuit deprives this Court of jurisdiction over issues involved in his appeal. See Taylor v. KeyCorp, 680 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) and citing United States v. Garcia-Robles, 562 F.3d 763, 767-68 (6th Cir. 2009)). This Court, however, may take certain steps towards reviving its jurisdiction in limited circumstances. These steps arise under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1, which provides in pertinent part:

An indicative ruling is warranted under Rule 62.1(a)(3) because Defendant now agrees, for the first time in this case, that a remand of this matter to the Social Security Administration is warranted pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. #19, PageID#s 1215-16). Although Defendant does not specify the reason or reasons why a remand is warranted, Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant's motion. Id. at 1216. The Commissioner, moreover, normally opposes a high percent of requests for remand, at least in this District. Given this and the lack of a present dispute in this Court, confidence is nearly absolute that, in the event the Court of Appeals remands this case, a Motion for Relief from the judgment would be granted and a remand for further administrative proceedings would be warranted under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

It should be noted that Defendant has identified particular proceedings that will occur in the event the case is remanded to the Social Security Administration — specifically, "the ALJ will re-evaluate appellant's Social Security disability benefits application under the rules and regulations, including evaluation limitations indicated in the opinion evidence from treating and reviewing physicians and psychologists." (Doc. #19, PageID# 1216). A judicial order requiring such administrative proceedings on remand would be well within the confines of sentence four of §405(g).

Accordingly, Defendant's Unopposed Motion For Indicative Ruling is well taken.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: