Kurtz v. F.O.I.L. Officer John Doe et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THOMAS KURTZ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	3:25-cv-01174 (AMN/TWD)
F.O.I.L. OFFICER JOHN DOE et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
THOMAS KURTZ
23-B-2545
Mid-State Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2500
Marcy, New York 13403
Plaintiff pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On August 27, 2025, plaintiff pro se Thomas Kurtz (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action
against defendants F.O.I.L. Officer John Doe and unnamed Tioga County Sheriffs (collectively,
“Defendants”), asserting numerous causes of action. 	Dkt. No. 1. 	Plaintiff sought and received
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 10 at 1-2.1
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, who
reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and, on November 4, 2025, recommended
1 Citations to docket entries utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system, and not the documents’ internal pagination.
Case 3:25-cv-01174-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 8

2
that the Complaint be dismissed. 	Dkt. No. 10 (“Report-Recommendation”). 	Magistrate Judge
Dancks advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days within which
to file written objections and that failure to object to the Report-Recommendation within fourteen
days would preclude appellate review. Id. at 9. Plaintiff filed a letter motion in response to the
Report-Recommendation on November 17, 2025 and several submissions thereafter. 	Dkt. Nos.
12-14. 2
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety and dismisses the Complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation
that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To be
‘specific,’ the objection must, with particularity, ‘identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings,
recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.’”
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting
N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 72.1(c)). 	If no specific objections have been filed, this Court reviews a
magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. 	See Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 229
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s notes to 1983 addition). Similarly, when a party
files “[g]eneral or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments
[previously] presented to the magistrate judge,” the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s
report-recommendations for clear error. O’Diah v. Mawhir, No. 08-cv-322, 2011 WL 933846, at
*1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations omitted); accord Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313
2 	The 	Court 	liberally 	construes 	these 	submissions 	as 	timely 	objections 	to 	the 	Report-
Recommendation. To the extent these submissions requested other relief, any such request was
properly denied by Magistrate Judge Dancks. Dkt. No. 16.
Case 3:25-cv-01174-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 8

3
F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (a “statement, devoid of any reference to specific findings or
recommendations to which [the plaintiff] objected and why, and unsupported by legal authority,
was not sufficient to preserve” a claim); Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases).
“When performing such a ‘clear error’ review, ‘the court need only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” 	Dezarea W. v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-cv-01138, 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023)
(quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-0367, 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y.
Nov. 14, 2017)).
“[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than
that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations
omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances
to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a
legal education. Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even a
pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at
particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal . . . .” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320, 2011
WL 3809920, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No.
22-cv-567, 2022 WL 16918287, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After appropriate review, “the
court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The Court adopts those aspects of the Report-Recommendation to which no party has
raised a specific objection, finding no clear error therein, including the background and the legal
Case 3:25-cv-01174-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 8

4
framework set forth in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity with which is presumed for
purposes of this decision.
Plaintiff alleges that “F.O.I.L.” and “state police” officers violated his constitutional rights
when they denied, in or about January 2025, his request for police records from September 2008.
Dkt. No. 1 at 4-5. Magistrate Judge Dancks carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions, some of
which appeared to list a business entity as a second plaintiff. Dkt. No. 10 at 2-3, 4-5. Magistrate
Judge Dancks first determined that, as a non-attorney, Plaintiff could only assert claims on his own
behalf. Id. at 4-5. She next determined that his pleadings did not satisfy either Rule 8 or Rule 10
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 5-6. After considering Plaintiff’s cursory factual
allegations, she further determined that his constitutional claims were conclusory and without any
factual support. 	Id. at 6. 	She finally determined that to the extent that Plaintiff was seeking to
challenge the denial of a records request under New York’s Freedom of Information Law
(“FOIL”), this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any such state law claim. Id. at 6-7
(collecting cases). 	As a result, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that the Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice, so that Plaintiff could pursue his claims in state court. Id. at 7-8.
Plaintiff’s submissions following the Report-Recommendation clarify the nature of his
allegations. 	Dkt. Nos. 12-14; see also Hotaling v. Martuscello, No. 24-cv-01216, 2025 WL
2607661, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2025) (“[W]here a pro se plaintiff has submitted other papers
to the Court, such as legal memoranda, the Court may consider statements in such papers to
supplement or clarify the plaintiff’s pleaded allegations.”) (alteration in original) (citation
omitted). In his first submission, Dkt. No. 12, Plaintiff confirms that he is seeking a police report
from September 2008, and states that this report is necessary for his use “in a CPL 440.10 motion
filed against The people of the state of new York [sic].” Dkt. No. 12 at 1; see also Rivas v. Fischer,
Case 3:25-cv-01174-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 8

5
780 F.3d 529, 543 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[A] motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to
N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10, [ ] provides the means of collateral attack on a criminal
judgment in New York state courts.”). Plaintiff also attaches two letters he received in response
to his FOIL request. Dkt. No. 12 at 9-10. The first letter, signed by the Chair of the Tioga County
Legislature, affirmed the denial of Plaintiff’s FOIL request as follows:
This is regarding your Freedom of Information request and subsequent appeal. You
requested that the Tioga County Sherriff’s Office provide you with copies of a
statement from on or about September 2008 which Tiffany Vanhusen made to
Officer Norberg. 	This FOIL request was denied due to “no records have been
found.” You then submitted an appeal of this determination to the Tioga County
Legislative Chair on December 04, 2024.
The Tioga County Legislature has considered your appeal. It is the decision of the
Legislature to uphold the original denial due to the Tioga County Sherriff’s Office
having never employed an Officer Norberg nor does the Tioga County Sheriff’s
Office possess any records or statements relating to a Tiffany Vanhusen including
on or about September 2008.
Id. at 9. The second letter, signed by a lieutenant in the Tioga County Sheriff’s Office, also denied
Plaintiff’s FOIL request, stating that “[t]he reason for the denial is that no records have been found”
and that “[i]t does not appear that the Tioga County Sheriff’s Office had any involvement in the
matter you are referring to.” Id. at 10.
In further submissions to this Court, Plaintiff argues that his FOIL request should have
been granted by state officials, see, e.g., id. at 4-6, and that the denial of his FOIL request also
constituted a violation of the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”), see,
e.g., Dkt. No. 14 at 3-4.
Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s submissions raise only two related specific objections
to the Report-Recommendation: (i) he should be able to challenge the denial of his FOIL request
in federal court; and (ii) he should receive leave to amend. Dkt. Nos. 12, 14. The Court reviews
Case 3:25-cv-01174-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 8

6
the balance of the Report-Recommendation for clear error, and finds none. Petersen, 2 F. Supp.
3d at 229.
Plaintiff’s first objection is meritless. He does not—and cannot—plausibly allege that the
denial of his FOIL request by state officials from the Tioga County Sherrif’s Office and the Tioga
County Legislature violated FOIA. 	See, e.g., Pennyfeather v. Tessler, 431 F.3d 54, 56 (2d Cir.
2005) (“‘[U]nder FOIA’ . . . ‘there is no private right of action against’ an official or employee of
a municipal or state, rather than a federal, agency.”) (citations omitted); Stoianoff v. Comm’r of
Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 12 F. App’x 33, 35 (“[Plaintiff]’s Freedom of Information Act (‘FOIA’)
claim cannot stand because ‘it is beyond question that FOIA applies only to federal and not state
agencies.”) (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 484 (2d Cir.
1999)); Esseily v. Hochul, No. 24-cv-2932, 2024 WL 1908320, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2024)
(“[T]o the extent Plaintiff seeks police records about the 1987 robbery, the federal FOIA statute,
5 U.S.C. § 552, applies only to federal agencies and not to state or city agencies.”) (citations
omitted).
Following de novo review, the Court also agrees with Magistrate Judge Dancks’
determination that there is no federal jurisdiction over any claim Plaintiff asserts pursuant to FOIL.
Dkt. No. 10 at 6-7; see, e.g., Jackson v. Wilcox, No. 23-cv-130, 2023 WL 4230351, at *2 (N.D.N.Y.
June 28, 2023) (“[T]he Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint as federal courts
do not have jurisdiction over claims related to FOIL request denials.”) (collecting cases); Esseily,
2024 WL 1908320, at *2 (“This Court lacks authority to grant relief over any claim Plaintiff may
be asserting under the New York State Freedom of Information Law (‘FOIL’), N.Y. Pub. Off. Law
§ 87.”) (citation omitted); Eckert v. City of Buffalo, No. 22-cv-540, 2025 WL 2836547, at *20 n.33
(W.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025) (“[F]ederal courts do not have independent jurisdiction to enforce state
Case 3:25-cv-01174-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 6 of 8

7
laws granting public access to official state records.”) (quoting Morrison v. MTA N.Y.C. Transit,
No. 24-cv-5992, 2024 WL 4450778, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2024)).
Additionally, “there is no due process claim for the process of obtaining FOIL documents
because Plaintiff lacks a property or liberty interest in the documents” and, in any event, “an Article
78 proceeding for FOIL claims is adequate for due process purposes.” 	Jackson, 2023 WL
4230351, at *2 (citations omitted); see also Eckert, 2025 WL 2836547, at *20 n.33 (“[W]ith
respect to the question of constitutional due process and FOIL requests, ‘adequate process is
clearly available through an Article 78 proceeding to remedy an improper denial of disclosure.’”)
(citation omitted). The Court also notes that both FOIL request denials Plaintiff included in his
supplemental submissions state that “no records have been found” from the requested time period,
more than seventeen years ago. Dkt. No. 12 at 9-10.
Plaintiff’s second objection is unpersuasive. 	See, e.g., Dkt. No. 12 at 1-2. 	As detailed
above and in the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the denial of his
FOIL request gives rise to any claim over which this Court has jurisdiction. Because the defects
in Plaintiff’s claims are substantive and could not be cured with better pleading, leave to amend is
denied as futile. 	Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000); Jackson, 2023 WL
4230351, at *3 (“As Plaintiff cannot cure the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the
complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.”).
In sum, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Dancks’ findings for the reasons stated in
the Report-Recommendation. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
Case 3:25-cv-01174-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 7 of 8

8
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 10, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules and close this case.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2025
Albany, New York
3 The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions cited herein.
Case 3:25-cv-01174-AMN-TWD Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 8 of 8