UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

THRESA ANN HANKERSON, Plaintiff, -v- 24 Civ. 1160 (PAE) (GS) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, _ OPINION & ORDER Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On February 14, 2024, Theresa Hankerson brought this action against the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), alleging that the Commissioner violated her rights by banning her from physically entering its offices, withholding information about her identity, and declining to pay her trust fund payments from 1997 until today. Dkts. 20~-21.! On September 20, 2024, the Commissioner moved to dismiss Hankerson’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Dkt. 29. On October 3, 2024, Hankerson opposed the motion. Dkt. 34. On November 1, 2024, the Commissioner replied. Dkt. 36. Before the Court is the August 22, 2025 Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Gary Stein, United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 38 (“Report”). It recommends granting the motion to dismiss for multiple reasons, including that Hankerson has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and failed to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

' The two filings by Hankerson on June 28, 2024 (Dkts. 20-21) constitute her amended complaint, See Dkt. 24.

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.”

(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,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 2 Civ. 5810,

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

(S.D.N.Y. 2003). As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Stein’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 14 days “will preclude appellate review,” Report at 20, the parties’ failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review, see Caidor v, Onondaga Cnty.,

(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 to dismiss. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this decision to plaintiff at the address on file, terminate the motion at Docket 29, and close this case. SO ORDERED. funk A, Engr Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge

Dated: September 29, 2025 New York, New York