; see also Houston v. Highland Care Ctr., Inc., No. 23-CV-8186, 2024 WL 638721, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2024) (“The defendant is not a state actor simply because it participated in Medicare and Medicaid programs.”); Veldhuis v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. 22-CV-1042, 2023 WL 319576, at *4 (D. Conn. Jan. 19, 2023) (“The Supreme Court has rejected an argument that a private insurance company constitutes a ‘state actor' for purposes of 1983 simply because the insurance company is subject to state regulation.”)
See, e.g., Houston v. Highland Care Ctr., Inc., No. 23-cv-8186, 2024 WL 638721, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2024) (“The defendant is not a state actor simply because it participated in Medicare and Medicaid programs.”); see also Veldhuis v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. 22-cv-1042, 2023 WL 319576, at *4 (D. Conn. Jan. 19, 2023) (“The Supreme Court has rejected an argument that a private insurance company constitutes a ‘state actor' for purposes of § 1983 simply because the insurance company is subject to state regulation.”).