Elite Plastic Surgery, LLC v. Huey

Filing 13

ORDER- The Court ADOPTS, as its own, the findings of fact and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, as set forth in the Report Doc. 12 .Accordingly, It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for default judgment Doc. 9 is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 7/27/2018. (See order for further details). (acha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
ELITE PLASTIC SURGERY, LLC
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
OTITA GABRIELA HUEY,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:18cv409

ORDER
On July 2, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan
entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment be granted. Defendant is a former patient of the plaintiff who
allegedly incurred $116,748.00 in debt for various surgical procedures and has failed to
make any payments towards this debt. By failing to appear in this matter and respond to
plaintiff’s complaint, defendant has conceded that plaintiff’s factual allegations are true –
i.e. that defendant owes $116,748.00 for surgical procedures. Given the posture of this
case, Judge Buchanan appropriately recommends that judgment be entered against
defendant in the amount of $116,748.00.
Having considered the record and Judge Buchanan’s thorough and well-reasoned
Report, to which no objections have been filed, and having found no clear error,1

1

The Court ADOPTS, as its own, the findings of fact and recommendations of the
United States Magistrate Judge, as set forth in the Report (Doc. 12).
Accordingly,
It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 9) is
GRANTED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of
record and to the defaulting defendant at her last known address.
The Clerk is further directed to place this matter among the ended causes.
Final judgment shall issue separately.
Alexandria, Virginia
July 27, 2018

1

See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (in the absence of any
objections to a magistrate’s report, the court “need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.’”).

2