Rodriguez v. Armstrong et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KEITH RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. THOMAS ARMSTRONG, and
MARGARET HARNEY-MATHEW,
Defendants.
9:24-cv-01248 (BKS/TWD)
Appearances:
Plaintiff pro se:
Keith Rodriguez
0900305506
Hudson County Jail
30-35 Hackensack Ave
Kearny, NJ 07032
For Defendants:
Stephen Daniel Button
St. Lawrence County Attorney's Office
48 Court Street
Canton, NY 13617
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Keith Rodriguez filed this action pro se asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendants Thomas Armstrong and Margaret Harney-Mathew, arising out of Plaintiff’s
incarceration at the St. Lawrence County Correctional Facility. (Dkt. No. 1, 9, 13). On May 1,
2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 29). Plaintiff filed a response on May 19, 2025, and
Defendants filed a reply on May 28, 2025. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38). This matter was referred to
Case 9:24-cv-01248-BKS-TWD Document 47 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks who, on December 31, 2025, issued a
Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. (Dkt.
No. 44). Magistrate Judge Dancks advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had
“fourteen (14) days within which to file written objections to the foregoing report” and that
“failure to object . . . within fourteen days will preclude appellate review.” (Id. at 16-17). No
objections were filed.
As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing
objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear
error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 44) is
ADOPTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that in light of the answer filed by defendants Armstrong and Harney-
Mathew (Dkt. No. 45), the Clerk is directed to issue a Mandatory Pretrial Scheduling Order; and
it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2026
Syracuse, New York
Case 9:24-cv-01248-BKS-TWD Document 47 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2