MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
ANDREW W. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
After consideration of Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Reverse with Remand and Enter Judgment (Dkt. No. 19), the Court finds that the Motion is well-taken and should be granted. Therefore, the Court,
The Court finds that a sentence four remand under § 405(g) is appropriate in this case in order to ensure that the Commissioner properly considers Plaintiff's claim of disability. See Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding that district court's remand should have been pursuant to sentence four, where purpose of the remand was to prompt additional fact finding and further evaluation of the existing facts); Morris v. Apfel, 14 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1135 (D. Neb. 1998) (sentence four remand appropriate where government conceded that remand was necessary to ensure proper consideration of plaintiff's claim, and where Appeals Council failed to address certain medical evidence). On remand, an ALJ will evaluate the onset, severity, and limiting effects of Plaintiff's mental impairments, with particular attention to the medical opinion evidence regarding these issues.
A district court remanding a case pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) must enter judgment in the case, and may not retain jurisdiction over the administrative proceedings on remand. Shalala v. Shaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993); Istre v. Apfel, 208 F.3d 517, 520-521 (5th Cir. 2000) (a sentence four remand must include a substantive ruling affirming, modifying or reversing the Secretary's decision). Therefore,