UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK enna aneeneane nero ott □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ tinue □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ DARREN FRANKLIN GALLOWAY, Plaintiff, : 19 Civ. 3400 (PAE) (ILC) ~ OPINION & ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Currently pending is a motion for attorneys’ fees, pursuant to the Social Security Act (the “Act”),

(b), by plaintiff's counsel Michael S, Aranoff (“Aranoff’). Dkts. 26-27, The motion follows a favorable decision for plaintiff, Darren Franklin Galloway, by defendant, Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), after remand of this case to the Commissioner. Before the Court is the May 6, 2022 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. James L. Cott, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court grant the motion for fees in the amount of $6,675, and that fees in the amount of $1,794.07 be returned to Galloway by Aranoff. Dkt. 35 (“Report”). The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Court adopts this recommendation. 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.”

(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 v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (SPF),

, at *2 (S.D.NLY. 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 Sery.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2003). As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Cott’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety, Because the Report explicitly states that “failure to object within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review,” Report at 8, the parties’ 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 foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion for fees in the amount of $6,675, and orders that fees in the amount of $1,794.07 be returned to Galloway by his counsel. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this decision to plaintiff at the address on file. SO ORDERED. p ‘in □ \é Cp United States District Judge

Dated: July 18, 2022 New York, New York