Rowe Plastic Surgery of Long Island, P.C. v. United Health Care

8/11/202 5 1:03 pm UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LONG ISLAND OFFICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only ROWE PLASTIC SURGERY OF LONG ISLAND, P.C., NORMAN MAURICE ROWE, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. and EAST COAST PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C., Plaintiffs, -against- ORDER 23-cv-04541 (JMA) (JMW) UNITED HEALTH CARE, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X AZRACK, United States District Judge: Rowe Plastic Surgery of Long Island, P.C. (“RPSLI”), Norman Maurice Rowe, M.D., M.H.A., L.L.C. (“Rowe”)1 , and East Coast Plastic Surgery, P.C. (“ECPS” and collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action on June 20, 2023, against Defendant United HealthCare Service, Inc. (“United HealthCare”) seeking damages based on (i) breach of contract, (ii) unjust enrichment, (iii) promissory estoppel, and (iv) fraudulent inducement. (See ECF No. 1.) Before the Court now is Judge Wicks’ R&R recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File its Amended Complaint be denied. (ECF No. 29.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts Judge Wicks’ R&R in its entirety, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint is DENIED. 1 Rowe (as defined above) was part of a related case, Rowe Plastic Surgery of Long Island, P.C. et al v. United Health Care, 2:23-cv-04548 (JMA)(JMW), which is now closed and consolidated with this action. I. DISCUSSION In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which objection[s] [are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C); see also United States ex rel. Coyne v. Amgen, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 3d 295, 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2017), aff’d sub nom., Coyne v. Amgen, Inc., 717 F. App’x 26 (2d Cir. 2017). The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Those portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific reasoned objection are reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). The Court finds no clear error in the portions of Magistrate Judge Wicks’ R&R to which there are no objections. Next, the Court turns to the portions of the R&R to which Plaintiffs have objected. After conducting a de novo review of the full record (including the motion papers, R&R, and objections) and applicable law, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Wicks’ recommendations, and therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. II. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close ECF Nos. 26 and 29. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2025 Central Islip, New York /s/ JMA JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE