Government Employees Insurance CO. et al v. Mayard et al

Filing 111

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the well-reasoned R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in accordance with page sixteen of the R&R, (D.E. # 105 at 16), and to close the case.Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 8/26/2019. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FSLED

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

INSURANCE CO., GEICO INDEMNITY

^ AU6 3 0 PfllQ ^

CO., GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE

^ ^

COMPANY,and GEICO CASUALTY CO.,

BROOKLYN OFFICE

Plaintiffs,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

-against-

ORDER
No. I5-CV-4077(CBA)
(RML)

GRACIA MAYARD,et al..
Defendants.
X

AMON,United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO General
Insurance Company, and GEICO Casualty Co., filed this action on July 10, 2015, alleging state-

law fraud and unjust enrichment as well as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). On October 7,2015,the Clerk ofCourt entered

default against Defendants Allmed Medical of Williamsburg, P.C., Billy Gervis, M.D., Jamaica
Medical Plaza, P.C., Pavel Yutsis, M.D., and Lifex Medical Care, P.C., after these Defendants

failed to appear or answer the complaint. Plaintiffs filed their motion for default judgment on
October 12, 2018, and this Court referred that motion to the Honorable Robert M. Levy, United
States Magistrate Judge,for a Report and Recommendation("R&R"). On May 9,2019,Magistrate
Judge Levy concluded that Plaintiffs established Defendants' liability on all counts and
recommended entering judgment against each Defendant in different amounts reflective of their

respective conduct. fSee D.E.# 105 at 16.)

No party has objected to the R&R,and the time for doing so has passed. The Court"may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

1

magistratejudge." 28U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1). To accept those portions oftheR&R to which no timely
objection has been made,"a district court need only satisfy itselfthat there is no clear error on the

face ofthe record." Nelson v. Smith.618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189(S.D.N.Y. 1985).
The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the well-reasoned
R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in accordance with page sixteen of the R&R,(D.E. # 105 at 16),
and to close the case.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: August'^ ,2019
Brooklyn, New York

s/Carol Bagley Amon
Carol Bagley
United States