Kurtz v. The State of New York et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THOMAS KURTZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
3:25-cv-1710
(ECC/MJK)
Appearances:
Thomas Kurtz, Pro se Plaintiff
Hon. Elizabeth C. Coombe, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Kurtz commenced this action by filing a Complaint on December
8, 2025, and additionally sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. Nos. 1, 5. This
matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz who, on March 26, 2026, granted
Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP and issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending,
among other things, that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice but without leave to
amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 	Dkt. No. 9. 	Magistrate Judge Katz advised the
parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had “14 days within which to file written objections”
to the Report-Recommendation and that “failure to object to th[e] report within 14 days will
Case 3:25-cv-01710-ECC-MJK Document 12 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
preclude appellate review.” (Dkt. No. 9 at 15) (citing Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir.
1993); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e)). No objections were filed.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts that portion of Magistrate Judge Katz’s
Report-Recommendation recommending dismissal without leave to amend for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue,
2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A proper objection is one
that identifies the specific portions of the [report-recommendation] that the objector asserts are
erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.” Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp.
2d 290, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted). Properly raised objections “must be specific and
clearly aimed at particular findings in the” report. Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F.
Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citation omitted). “[E]ven 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. 6-cv-13320, 2011 WL 3809920 at *2 (Aug. 25,
2011) (citation omitted). 	Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly
preserved objection are reviewed for clear error. Kruger, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 296 (citation omitted).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Complaint arises from the Defendants’ alleged failure to provide Plaintiff with
“his police report” pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). See generally
Dkt. No. 1. After summarizing the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended dismissal due
to the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. 	See Dkt. No. 9 at 4-5
Case 3:25-cv-01710-ECC-MJK Document 12 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
(citing Jackson v. Wilcox, No. 1:23-cv-0130 (MAD/CFH), 2023 WL 2756489, at *5 (N.D.N.Y.
Apr. 3, 2023) (“As courts have repeatedly held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review FOIL
claims, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review [defendant’s] alleged denial of plaintiff’s FOIL
request. Thus, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4230351 (N.D.N.Y.
June 28, 2023) (explaining, “the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint as
federal courts do not have jurisdiction over claims related to FOIL request denials.”) (citations
omitted)). Magistrate Judge Katz further noted that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
should be without prejudice, but without leave to amend.
Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Katz’s recommendation for clear error, and found none,
the Court adopts this recommendation.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Katz’s recommendation that the Complaint be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Dkt. No. 9, is ADOPTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice
but without leave to amend; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the Plaintiff in accordance with
the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01710-ECC-MJK Document 12 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 3