FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Special Order 3 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Remand, Doc. 19, has been referred to the undersigned for a recommended disposition. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court recommends that Defendant's motion be GRANTED, the Commissioner's decision REVERSED, and the case REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.

On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this case, seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision of the Commissioner denying his application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act (the "Act"). Doc. 1. On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment arguing that the administrative law judge erred in denying Plaintiff's request to subpoena his treating and examining physicians, Drs. Earl C. Ruby, D.O. and Kelly Davis, D.O., respectively. Doc. 15 at 8-9. After receiving an extension to file her cross-motion for summary judgment, Defendant filed Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Remand under the fourth sentence of section 405(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 19. Therein, Defendant concedes that "remand should be obtained for rehearing, including the issuance of subpoenas for the testimony of Drs. Ruby and Davis, and a new administrative decision." Doc. 19 at 2.

In Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 97-102 (1991), the Supreme Court made clear that there are only two types of remand orders permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The fourth sentence of § 405(g) further states that the remand order may be entered upon the pleadings and transcript of the record. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Supreme Court has held that a remand for further administrative proceedings, like the remand requested in the case at bar, is a fourth sentence remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 625-26 (1990) (sentence four provides the appropriate relief when the evidence on the record does not support the Commissioner's conclusions and further fact finding is necessary).

Having reviewed the record, the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, it is recommended that Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand, Doc. 19, be GRANTED, the Commissioner's decision REVERSED, and the case REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.

SO RECOMMENDED.