Case Information
*1 Case 1:25-mc-01838-DG Document 15 Filed 05/06/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 426 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 5/6/2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X :
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. , :
: Petitioners, : 1:25-mc-137-GHW :
-v- : ORDER : CHARLES DENG, L.AC, et al. , :
:
Respondent. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------------ X
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
On March 27, 2025, Petitioners commenced this action noticing a motion to compel Respondents to comply with outstanding subpoenas duces tecum or, in the alternative, to transfer the motion to the Honorable Sanket J. Bulsara of the Eastern District of New York. Dkt. No. 1. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on April 1, 2025. Dkt. No. 11. On April 21, 2025, Judge Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant Petitioners ’ application to transfer the motion to compel to Judge Bulsara of the Eastern District. Dkt. No. 14 (the “ R&R ” ). Judge Lehrburger ordered that any objections to the R&R be filed no later than fourteen days from the date of issuance of the R&R. Id. at 5; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Respondents have not appeared in this action, and no objections have been filed as of the date of this order.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge ’s report and recommendation “ 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). The Court reviews for clear error those parts of a report and recommendation to which no party has timely objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Lewis v. Zon , 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Because no objection to the R&R was submitted within the fourteen-day window, the Court *2 Case 1:25-mc-01838-DG Document 15 Filed 05/06/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 427 has reviewed the R&R for clear error, finding none. See Braunstein v. Barber , No. 06-cv-5978 (CS) (GAY), 2009 WL 1542707, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009) (explaining that a “ district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections have been made, as long as no clear error is apparent from the face of the record” ). The Court, therefore, accepts and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this matter to the Eastern District of New York without delay. Petitioners are directed to serve a copy of this order on Respondents and to retain proof of service.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6, 2025
New York, New York __________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS United States District Judge
2