United States v. Ducena (E.D.N.Y 2021). · Go Syfert
United States v. Ducena (E.D.N.Y 2021). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Ducena
2:19-cv-04650.
District Court, E.D. New York.
Oct 21, 2021.
Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- X : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

– against – : 19-CV-4650 (AMD) (PK)

: ERNST DUCENA, : Defendant. : --------------------------------------------------------------- X

ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:

The plaintiff filed this action against Ernst D ucena on August 13, 2019, seeking damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 254o(c)(1), which governs the National Health Service Corps

Scholarship Program. (ECF No. 1.) The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on February

2, 2021, which it served on the defendant on February 4, 2021. (ECF Nos. 19, 22.) The clerk

entered a certificate of default on March 5, 2021. (EC F No. 25.) On March 16, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, which I r eferred to Magistrate Judge Kuo that same

day. (ECF No. 26.) Judge Kuo issued a thorough report and recommendation on July 27, 2021, in which she recommends that I grant the plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 28.) No party filed an objection to the report and recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Judge Kuo recommends that the Court award $349,740.90 to the plaintiff, which includes $44,897.40 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 254o(c)(1)(a), $135,000 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 254o(c)(1)(B), and $169,843.50 interest as of January 25, 2021, plus additional interest accruing at the rate of $51.75 per day from January 26, 2021 until the date of judgment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 254o(c)(1)(C). A district 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). To accept a report and

recommendation to which no timely objection has been made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” VOX Amplification Ltd. v. Meussdorffer, 50 F. Supp. 3d 355, 369 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). I have reviewed Judge Kuo’s well-reasoned and comprehensive report and recommendation and find no error. Accordingly, I adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.

_s_/_A_n_n_ M__. _D_o_n_n_e_ll_y____________ ANN M. DONNELLY United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York October 21, 2021