Case Name: Ronald PAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-16
Citations: 547 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: No. 12-400
Parties: Ronald PAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RALPH K. WINTER and GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
Ronald PAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-400.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 16, 2013.
Ronald Payne, New Rochelle, NY, pro se.
Susan D. Baird, Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RALPH K. WINTER and GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Ronald Payne, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his Social Security action brought pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir.2012). Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Payne's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Payne failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough April 15, 2011 report and recommendation.
We have considered all of Payne's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.