DECISION & ORDER On May 27, 2020, the plaintiff, Sreekrishna Cheruvu, commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County, alleging violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985. Docket Item 1-1. He also brings claims for malicious prosecution, common law fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under New York law. Id. Cheruvu’s claims stem from his criminal prosecution and the associated investigation for his alleged use of incorrect billing codes. See id. He has sued HealthNow New York, Inc., doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Western New York (“BCBS”); Independent Health Association, Inc. (“IHA”); Individual Practice Association of Western New York, Inc. (“IPA”), an affiliate of IHA; Excellus Health Plan, Inc., doing business as Univera Healthcare (“Univera”); and a BCBS employee, Susan Schultz, who is also known as Susan Nason (“Schultz”). Id. On June 29, 2020, the defendants removed the case to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction, Docket Item 1, and about a month later, the defendants moved to dismiss, Docket Items 11 (BCBS’s and Schultz’s motion); 13 (IHA’s and IPA’s motion); 14 (Univera’s motion). The next day, this Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket Item 15. On September 9, 2020, Cheruvu responded to the motions to dismiss, Docket Items 23, 24, 25; and about three weeks later, the defendants replied, Docket Items 30 (IHA’s and IPA’s reply); 31 (Univera’s reply); 32 (BCBS’s and Schultz’s reply). On March 23, 2022, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that the defendants’ motions should be granted. Docket Item 33. On April 20, 2022, Cheruvu objected to the R&R. Docket Item 36. On July 15, 2022, the defendants responded to the objections. Docket Items 39 (BCBS’s and Schultz’s response); 40 (Univera’s response); 41 (IHA’s and IPA’s response). And two weeks later, Cheruvu replied. Docket Item 42. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court must review de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). This Court has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the R&R; the record in this case; the objection, response, and reply; and the materials submitted to Judge Foschio. Based on that de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Foschio’s recommendation to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal claims. But for the reasons that follow, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cheruvu’s state-law claims and remands those claims to state court. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 In 1985, Cheruvu “obtained his New York medical license.” Docket Item 1-1 at 23. In the years that followed, BCBS, IHA, IPA, and Univera all granted Cheruvu credentials as a participating physician and approved him as an in-network provider. See id. at
7-11, 14. But in early 2013, Cheruvu resigned as a BCBS participating provider, id. at 12. And in 2014, BCBS terminated Cheruvu in his capacity as a non-participating provider, id. at 15; Univera suspended Cheruvu as provider, id. at 14; and IHA terminated Cheruvu as a participating provider, id. at 13. From 2009 until 2014, Cheruvu focused his practice on addiction medicine. Id. at 29. To treat patients with opioid addictions, Cheruvu sometimes prescribed Suboxone. See id. at
