Ruiz v. Rensselear County Correctional Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NAQUAN RUIZ
Plaintiff,
-against- 	9:24-CV-179 (LEK/PJE)
RENSSELAER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff Naquan Ruiz commenced this action by filing a complaint
against the Rensselaer County Correctional Facility, Sheriff Kyle Bourgault, Chief Higgitt,
Lieutenant Morin, Lieutenant Sauer, Officer Mark, Kitchen Staff Worker Alex, Kitchen Staff
Worker Jess, and Kitchen Staff Worker Lauren under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First
Amendment Right to Free Expression. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”); Dkt. No. 9 (“Amended
Complaint”).
On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. See Am. Compl. On October
8, 2024, this Court issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order finding that Plaintiff’s First
Amendment Free Exercise claims against Staff Arthur and Rensselaer County, and First
Amendment retaliation claims against Officer Mark survived this Court’s review and required a
response. See Dkt. No. 11 at 4–7 (“October Order”). In the October Order, this Court dismissed
all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the other Defendants. See October Order at 3–7.
On July 31, 2025, Defendant Rensselaer County filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dkt. No. 20 (“Motion”). On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed his response, Dkt. No. 24,
(“Response”) and Defendants replied on October 30, 2025. Dkt. No. 25 (“Reply).
Case 9:24-cv-00179-LEK-PJE Document 27 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On February 13, 2026, the Honorable Judge Paul J. Evangelista, United States Magistrate
Judge, issued an Order & Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Rule 72.3(c), recommending that the Motion be granted in its entirety. Dkt. No. 26 (“Report and
Recommendation”).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that
follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
II. 	BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background detailed in the
Report and Recommendation. See R. & R. at 2–9.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28 United States Code Section
636 govern the review of decisions rendered by Magistrate Judges.” A.V. by Versace, Inc. v.
Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 191 F. Supp. 2d 404, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Review of decisions rendered by magistrate judges are also governed by the
Local Rules. See L.R. 72.1. 28 U.S.C. § 636 states:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by
rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those 	portions 	of 	the 	report 	or 	specified 	proposed 	findings 	or
recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may
accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify, 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	findings 	or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When written objections are filed and the district court conducts a de
novo review, that “de novo determination does not require the Court to conduct a new hearing;
Case 9:24-cv-00179-LEK-PJE Document 27 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 4

3
rather, it mandates that the Court give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific
objections have been made.” A.V. by Versace, 191 F. Supp. 2d at 406 (emphasis in original).
“A proper objection must be specific.” Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, No. 24-
1103, 2025 WL 3007285, at *3 (2d Cir. Oct. 28, 2025). 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.’” Nutt v. New York, No. 12-CV-385,
2012 WL 4006408, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2012) (quoting N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c)).
“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no
timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the
record.” DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “When a party
makes only conclusory or general objections . . . the Court will review the [report and
recommendation] strictly for clear error.” N.Y.C. Dist. Councils. of Carpenters Pension Fund v.
Forde, 341 F. Supp. 3d 334, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,
602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of it. See Dkt. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and
Recommendation for clear error. See DiPilato, 662 F. Supp. 2d at 339.
After carefully considering Judge Evangelista’s well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds no clear error. Thus, the Court approves and adopts the Report
and Recommendation in its entirety.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
Case 9:24-cv-00179-LEK-PJE Document 27 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 26, is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further,
ORDERED, that the Clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this case;
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	March 12, 2026
Albany, New York
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
United States District Judge
Case 9:24-cv-00179-LEK-PJE Document 27 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 4