UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------- X : KEISHA D. HOGANS, : : Plaintiff, : : 23-CV-10514 (VSB) (OTW) - against - : : ORDER N.Y.C. COMPTROLLER’S OFFICE, et al., : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On November 29, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Keisha D. Hogans filed her complaint against various Defendants, including the New York City Comptroller’s Office (“OOC”), the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (“OATH”), Administrative Law Judge Kevin Casey (“Casey”), the New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”), the New York State Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”), Caroline J. Downey (“Downey”) in her capacity as the Civil Rights Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (“DOJ”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and District Council 37, AFSCME (“DC 37”). (Doc. 1.) On September 13, 2024, I referred this case to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for general pretrial management. (Doc. 19.) On September 24, 2024, Defendants Downey and OAG jointly moved to dismiss. (Doc. 21.) On November 18, 2024, Defendant DC 37 moved to dismiss. (Doc. 32.) On December 24, 2024, Defendants OOC, OATH, DOI, and Casey jointly moved to dismiss. (Doc. 38.) I referred Defendants’ motions to dismiss to Magistrate Judge Wang for a Report and Recommendation on December 26, 2024. (Doc. 43.) On July 16, 2025, Magistrate Judge Wang ordered Plaintiff to show cause why she should not recommend dismissal of the DOJ and the EEOC for (1) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i); and (2) Plaintiff’s failure to name the proper parties as United States Defendants. (Doc. 75 at 3.) On August 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter which primarily focused on her substantive allegations and does not attempt to remediate the service

issues identified by Magistrate Judge Wang. (See generally Doc. 78.) On August 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Wang issued a Report and Recommendation (“First Report and Recommendation”) recommending that I dismiss all claims against the EEOC and the DOJ with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve the federal agencies and her failure to prosecute the case against them. (Doc. 79 (“First R&R”) at 3.) On August 26, 2025, Magistrate Judge Wang issued a thorough 31-page Report and Recommendation (“Second Report and Recommendation”), recommending that I grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. (See Doc. 81 (“Second R&R”) at 30.) Both the First and Second Report and Recommendation state: “In accordance with

(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen

(14) days (including weekends and holidays) from receipt of this Report to file written objections.” (First R&R at 3; Second R&R at 30.) They further state: “Failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review.” (First R&R at 4; Second R&R at 31.) A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). “To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate [judge], 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.” Nelson v. Smith,

(S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citations omitted). Although both the First and Second Report and Recommendation explicitly provided that “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from receipt of this Report to file written objections,” no party has filed an objection or requested additional time to do so. I have reviewed each detailed and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation for clear error and, after careful review, find none. I therefore ADOPT both the First Report and Recommendation and the Second Report and Recommendation in their entirety. For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Wang’s First Report and Recommendation 1s adopted in full, and Plaintiffs claims against the EEOC and DOJ are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Wang’s Second Report and Recommendation ts also adopted in full, and Plaintiff's claims against the remaining Defendants are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to dismiss this action with prejudice and close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2025 New York, New York ,

Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge