UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only DEMOS P. DEMOPOULOS, DANIEL J. GATTO, KENNETH BARRETT, WILLIAM CASSESE FILED and JOHN A. CURCIO, as Trustees and Fiduciaries CLERK of the LOCAL 854 HEALTH & WELFARE 5:21 pm, Sep 15, 2021 BENEFITS FUND, and as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the LOCAL 854 PENSION FUND, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiffs, LONG ISLAND OFFICE

-against- ORDER 18-CV-4813 (JMA) (AKT) DR. SAMEH H. AKNOUK DENTAL SERVICES, PC,

Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X AZRACK, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Local 854 Health and Welfare Benefits Fund and Local 854 Pension Fund commenced this action against Defendant Dr. Sameh H. Aknouk Dental Services, pursuant to Sections 502(a)(3) and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended,

(a)(3), 1145 (“ERISA”). On February 21, 2021, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 45, 48.) On May 25, 2021, I referred defendant’s motion to Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Electronic Order, May 25, 2021). On August 27, 2021, Judge Tomlinson issued an R&R recommending that the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 51.) In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which objection[s][are] made.”

(b)(1)(C); -se-e -al-so- -B-ro-w-n- v-. -E-b-er-t, No. 05–CV–5579,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(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.,

(E.D.N.Y. 2008).

To date, no objections have been filed to the R&R and the deadline for filing any such objections has passed. I have reviewed Judge Tomlinson’s R&R for clear error, and finding none, I adopt the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment are DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 15, 2021 Central Islip, New York

/s/ (JMA) JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE