UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only EDITH CRUZ BONILLA, ORDER 20-cv-00807 (JMA)(SIL) Plaintiff,

-against- FILED CLERK

ANDREW M. SAUL, 1:54 pm, Mar 01, 2022

U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Defendants. LONG ISLAND OFFICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X AZRACK, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Edith Cruz Bonilla (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on February 13, 2020, against Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security Administration ( “Defendant”) seeking review and reversal of a final administrative determination of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff’s September 27, 2016 application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On December 4, 2020, the parties filed cross- motions for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 14,15.) On December 21, 2020, the Court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Electronic Order dated 12/21/2020.) On November 23, 2021, the motions were reassigned to Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke who issued, on January 28, 2022, the R&R currently before the Court. (ECF No. 17.) In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or ... recommendations to which objection[s][are] made.”

(b)(1)(C); -se -e -al-so- -B-ro-w-n- -v-. -E-be-r-t, No. 05–CV–5579,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). “Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” Smith v. Campbell,

(2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2002)); see also Phillips v. Long Island R.R. Co.,

, 100 (2d Cir. 2021) (same). In the -- --- --------------------- absence of any objections, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd.,

(E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal citations omitted). No objections have been filed and the time for doing so has since passed. I have reviewed Judge Locke’s R&R for clear error, and finding none, I adopt the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the R&R.

SO ORDERED. Dated: March 1, 2022 Central Islip, New York

/s/ JMA JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE