Hankerson v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-01160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thresa Ann Hankerson v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Engelmayer granted dismissal after finding Hankerson had not exhausted remedies and had not clearly stated a claim.
Thresa Ann Hankerson’s case against the Commissioner of Social Security was dismissed, and the case was closed. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal permits or bars refiling.
What happened
In Thresa Ann Hankerson v. Commissioner of Social Security, Hankerson claimed that the Commissioner violated her rights by barring her from physically entering its offices, withholding identity information, and not paying trust fund payments from 1997 onward.
The Commissioner asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint because it did not state a valid claim, or alternatively to enter judgment without a trial. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal, citing Hankerson’s failure to complete required administrative steps and failure to give a short, clear explanation showing that she was entitled to relief. Neither side objected.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in full and granted the motion to dismiss. The court directed the clerk to close the case; the opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hankerson v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-01160
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 29, 2025
Background
On February 14, 2024, Thresa Ann Hankerson sued the Commissioner of Social Security. She alleged 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 the present. Hankerson filed an amended complaint in two filings dated June 28, 2024.
On September 20, 2024, the Commissioner moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Commissioner also sought summary judgment as an alternative. Hankerson opposed the motion, and the Commissioner filed a reply.
Report and Recommendation
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein. On August 22, 2025, Judge Stein recommended granting the motion to dismiss for multiple reasons, including Hankerson’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies and failure to provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8(a)(2). Exhaustion generally means completing required administrative procedures before seeking relief in court.
Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. The court found no such error.
Ruling
Judge Engelmayer adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and granted the motion to dismiss. The court directed the clerk to mail Hankerson a copy of the decision, terminate the motion at Docket 29, and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and it does not separately describe a ruling on the alternative request for summary judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.