REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE, Magistrate Judge.

This action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner"), which granted in part and denied in part the application of Jamie Odenwelder ("Odenwelder" or "Plaintiff") for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq. (the "Act"). 1 Following the initial pleadings, and pursuant to the procedural order entered by the Court, the Commissioner lodged a copy of the administrative record on April 27, 2017. On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed her brief in support of her request for review, and Defendant's responsive brief would have been due on June 30, 2017. The Court referred this matter for preparation of a Report and Recommendation on June 28, 2017, and re-assigned its referral from the docket of one of my colleagues to me on August 2, 2017.

The Commissioner has not filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff's request for review but rather, on June 28, 2017, moved for a remand of this case pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 10.) Defendant represents that, "[u]pon further review, the Commissioner has determined that further evaluation of Plaintiff's claim is warranted." (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendant seeks an Order remanding the case for the purpose of permitting further action by the Commissioner. (Id. at 2.) She represents that "[u]pon remand, the Appeals Council will further evaluate Plaintiff's claim and/or direct an administrative law judge to further evaluate Plaintiff's claim and issue a new decision." (Id. ¶ 3.) Counsel for Defendant obtained the consent of Plaintiff's counsel for this motion to remand, (id. ¶ 6), and Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to Defendant's motion.

While the basis for Defendant's decision to grant further review is not detailed in the motion, we accept that Plaintiff, through her counsel, has made an informed decision to consent to a remand on the terms articulated by Defendant in her motion. We see no reason to recommend that the Court do anything other than what the parties have requested. Our recommendation follows.

RECOMMENDATION

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2017, in light of Defendant's Uncontested Motion to Remand (Doc. 10), it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the Court remand this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and enter a final judgment.

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of the administrative record, the brief in support of review filed by Plaintiff, and Defendant's Uncontested Motion to Remand, to which Plaintiff has filed no response, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. Defendant's Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is GRANTED and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings; and

3. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes.

NOTICE

Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, on this date in the above captioned matter. You are hereby notified that within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this Notice of the filing of the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, any party may file (in duplicate) with the clerk and serve upon all other parties written objections thereto (See Local Civil Rule 72.1 IV (b)). Failure of a party to file timely objections to the Report & Recommendation shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court Judge.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), the judge to whom the case is assigned will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. The judge may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge, receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

Where the magistrate judge has been appointed as special master under F.R.Civ.P 53, the procedure under that rule shall be followed.