UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AUKIMA NYREE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER – against – 24-cv-07906 (ER) (GRJ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. RAMOS, D.J.: Aukima Nyree Williams brought this action pursuant to

(g) and 1383(c)(3), challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Doc. 1. �is action was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on October 21, 2024, but the next day, on October 22, 2024, this action was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo. �is action was reassigned again on July 2, 2025 to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on August 16, 2025, recommending that Williams’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted, in part, and this action be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Doc. 17 at 1–2. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Jones recommended remanding this action “for further development of the record and an assessment of [Williams’] ability to meet the mental demands of basic work activity based on an adequate record.”

. Magistrate Judge Jones notified the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the R&R to file written objections.

. �at period has passed, and no objection to the R&R has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the R&R is ADOPTED. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Parties may raise specific written objections to the report and recommendation “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy.” /d.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which timely and specific objections are made.

(b)(1); see also United States v. Male Juvenile,

(2d Cir. 1997). The district court may adopt those parts of the report and recommendation to which no party has timely objected, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. Lewis v. Zon,

(S.D.N.Y. 2008). II. DISCUSSION Notwithstanding that no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Jones’ thorough and well-reasoned R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate Judge Jones’ recommendations. HI. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Williams’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, in part, and this case is remanded for further administrative proceedings. It is SO ORDERED. Dated: Now Vouk New York EE bt Dee □ EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.DJ.