UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK een eee eee eee cee nn cone ene ne nnn eee ee eaten, JOEY DEL RIO, □ Plaintiff, 20 Civ. 7792 (PAE) (KHP) ~ OPINION AND ORDER COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY : ADMINISTRATION; ' Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Iudge: Plaintiff Joey Del Rio brings this action under the Social Security Act (the “‘Act”),

(g), seeking judicial review ofa final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner’”) denying Del Rio Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Act.” Before the Court is the September 3, 2021 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Katharine H, Parker, United States Magistrate J udge, recommending that the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be granted because Del Rio has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Dkt. 25 (“Report”). For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in full. DISCUSSION In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28

' As of July 9, 2021, Kilolo Kijakazi has been appointed Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration CSSA”). 2 Although the Complaint so describes its claim, see Dkt. | “Compl.” at 1, for the reasons ciscussed in the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 25 (“Report”), there has been no such final

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” Ruiz y. Citibank, N_A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WEL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC),

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2003). Because neither Del Rio nor the Commissioner has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Parker’s thorough and well- reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety, The Report explicitly states that failure to object within fourteen days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review. Report at 6. Accordingly, the failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cty.,

(2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

(2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). CONCLUSION For the reasons articulated in the Report, the Court grants the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket 18, and to close this case. SO ORDERED.

Paul A. Engelmayer 0 j United States District Judge

Dated: September 24, 2021 New York, New York