Gidea v. OWEGO Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANDREW B. GIDEA,
Plaintiff,
v.
OWEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
3:25-cv-0103
(ECC/ML)
Appearances:
Andrew B. Gidea, Pro Se Plaintiff
Hon. Elizabeth C. Coombe, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Andrew Gidea commenced this proceeding in the Southern District of New
York by the filing of a Complaint, and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. Nos.
1, 2. On January 10, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred this
action to the Northern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), as the more
convenient forum. Dkt. No. 6. 	This matter was subsequently referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Miroslav Lovric who, on December 16, 2025, granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP
and issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed
with leave to replead as to certain Defendants and claims. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff was informed that
he had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1), and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude
appellate review. Id. at 14. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.
As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing
Case 3:25-cv-00103-ECC-ML Document 10 Filed 05/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Lovric’s recommendation that the Complaint be
dismissed with leave to amend as against Defendant Village of Owego and Defendant Reardon in
her individual capacity, for the reasons set forth in the recommendation. Dkt. No. 8 at 5-8.
The Court also agrees that the Complaint should be dismissed against Defendants Starzek
and Parker, with leave to amend to the extent Plaintiff asserts a Fourth Amendment claim for
unreasonable search and/or unlawful detention. As Magistrate Judge Lovric observed, Plaintiff’s
allegation that these Defendants “entered a dwelling by opening a locked door without a search
warrant or probable cause. This led to the Plaintiff being unlawfully detained[,]” lacks minimally
sufficient factual detail to support a Fourth Amendment claim. 	Dkt. No. 8 at 10-11. 	See, e.g.,
Keith v. Romain, No. 5:25-cv-00747 (AMN/PJE), 2026 WL 612677, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 4,
2026) (Adopting recommendation to dismiss Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim where
“Plaintiff had not alleged any details regarding his interactions with [the Defendant] or the events
leading up to his purported seizure.”); Besley v. Borden, No. 21-cv-06754, 2022 WL 1128556, at
*3 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2022) (“Without knowing any of the circumstances of the search, the Court
simply cannot analyze either whether the search without a warrant was unreasonable or whether
the search was executed pursuant to one of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant
requirement.”).
The Complaint should also be dismissed against Defendant Fleming with leave to amend.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fleming, a dog control officer, “stole” Plaintiff’s emotional
support animal while Plaintiff was handcuffed to the wall. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. To the extent Plaintiff
Case 3:25-cv-00103-ECC-ML Document 10 Filed 05/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
asserts a Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim predicated on these allegations, they too lack
sufficient information to guide the Court in determining whether Defendant Fleming violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. “The unreasonable removal or killing of a companion animal
constitutes an unconstitutional seizure of personal property under the Fourth Amendment.”
Newsome v. Bogan, 795 F. App’x 72, 73 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing Carroll v. County of Monroe, 712
F.3d 649, 651 (2d Cir. 2013); Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 215-16 (2d Cir. 2012)). 	“To
determine whether a seizure is unreasonable, a court must balance the nature and quality of the
intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the
governmental interest alleged to justify the intrusion and determine whether the totality of the
circumstances justified the particular sort of seizure.” Id. (quoting Carroll, 712 F.3d at 651). Here,
Plaintiff’s limited allegations as to this claim are too conclusory and speculative to plausibly
suggest a Fourth Amendment seizure claim related to his dog, to the extent they fail to describe
the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the alleged seizure, and whether his dog has been
euthanized. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim related to his dog
is dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Lettieri v. Gaska, No. 3:24-cv-0102 (GTS/ML), 2025
WL 2404293, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2025) (recognizing that unreasonable removal of
companion animal can constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but dismissing claim
where allegations were “too speculative” as to the purported seizure), report and recommendation
adopted, 2025 WL 2403075 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2025), appeal dismissed (Oct. 27, 2025).
Finally, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Reardon in her official
capacity and Defendant Owego Police Department should be dismissed without leave to amend,
for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Lovric’s recommendation. Dkt. No. 8 at 4-5, 8.
For these reasons, it is hereby
Case 3:25-cv-00103-ECC-ML Document 10 Filed 05/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 8, is
ADOPTED as set forth in this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice
and with leave to amend as against Defendants Village of Owego, Starzek, Parker, Fleming, and
Reardon in her individual capacity; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice
but without leave to amend as against Defendants Owego Police Department and Reardon in her
official capacity; and it is further
ORDERED that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date
of this Order. Any amended complaint must be a complete pleading which will replace the current
complaint in total; and it is further
ORDERED that if Plaintiff files a timely amended complaint, it shall be referred to
Magistrate Judge Lovric for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, the
Clerk is directed to close this case without further order from the Court; 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: May 11, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00103-ECC-ML Document 10 Filed 05/11/26 Page 4 of 4