Keith v. Romain et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DAVID KEITH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	5:25-cv-00747 (AMN/PJE)
CARLOS ROMAIN, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
DAVID KEITH
416 Stinard Avenue
Syracuse, New York 13207
Plaintiff pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On June 12, 2025, Plaintiff pro se David Keith, commenced this action and asserted
violations of his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful seizure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”) against Sergeant Carlos Romain, Mayor Benjamin Walsh, and the City of
Syracuse (collectively, “Defendants”). See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff did not pay the
filing fee and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt. No. 2.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul Evangelista, who reviewed
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and on January 20, 2026, granted Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to proceed IFP and recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Romain and
Walsh in their official capacities be dismissed with prejudice and that the remainder of the
Case 5:25-cv-00747-AMN-PJE Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. See Dkt. No. 4 at 17 (“Report-
Recommendation”).1 Magistrate Judge Evangelista 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 18. No party has filed objections, and the time for filing objections has expired.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety.
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. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,
228 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(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 Notes: 1983 Addition).
Similarly, if an objection simply rehashes arguments originally presented to the magistrate judge,
this Court reviews the relevant portions of the report-recommendation for clear error. See id. 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-1138, 2023 WL 2552452, at
*1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-367, 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
1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 5:25-cv-00747-AMN-PJE Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 7

3
that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (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
Because no party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court
reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
Plaintiff alleges that on June 13, 2023, while walking to Syracuse City Hall, Plaintiff saw
Defendant Walsh, greeted him, and asked if he could speak with him. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Defendant
Walsh agreed and invited Plaintiff around the corner to speak with him. Id. According to Plaintiff,
Defendant Romain subsequently appeared and detained Plaintiff, and Defendant Walsh did not
intervene, despite having the opportunity to do so. Id.
First, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed
for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 4 at 6-7.
Rule 8 requires a pleading to contain, inter alia, “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing’
why [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Id. at 6 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). Here, Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00747-AMN-PJE Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Evangelista found that Plaintiff did not provide enough detail or context to sufficiently allege that
Defendant Romain violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that Defendant Walsh failed to
intervene, such as the circumstances surrounding the nature of his purported detention, details
regarding the manner, location, or length of time that Plaintiff was detained, or details regarding
his interactions with Defendants Romain and Walsh prior to, during, or post detention. Id. at 6.
Second, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
claim against Defendant Romain in his individual capacity be dismissed without prejudice because
Plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that he was unlawfully seized, finding that Plaintiff had not
alleged any details regarding his interactions with Defendant Romain or the events leading up to
his purported seizure. See id. at 7-9 (citing, inter alia, Clarke v. Cnty. of Broome, No. 10-cv-399,
2012 WL 1005086, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2012) (noting that “even unreasonable, unjustified,
or outrageous conduct by an officer is not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if it does not
involve a seizure” and that “[i]n order for a seizure to occur, the subject must yield to the assertion
of authority over him”)).
Third, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
unlawful seizure claim against Defendant Walsh in his individual capacity be dismissed without
prejudice because Plaintiff failed to allege how Defendant Walsh was personally involved in his
purported unlawful seizure. Id. at 12-13 (citing, inter alia, Peck v. Cnty. of Onondaga, New York,
No. 21-cv-651, 2021 WL 3710546, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2021) (holding that “[a] defendant
in a [Section] 1983 action may not be held liable for damages for constitutional violations merely
because he held a high position of authority” (citation omitted))). Magistrate Judge Evangelista
found that Plaintiff’s allegations pertaining to Defendant Walsh—that Plaintiff greeted Defendant
Walsh and asked to speak with him, Defendant Walsh agreed to speak with him, and Defendant
Case 5:25-cv-00747-AMN-PJE Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Romain then purportedly detained Plaintiff in Defendant Walsh’s presence—are insufficient to
demonstrate Defendant Walsh’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Id.
at 12.
Fourth, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
failure-to-intervene claim against Defendant Walsh in his individual capacity be dismissed without
prejudice. Id. at 9-10. Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that it was premature to evaluate
Plaintiff’s failure-to-intervene claim because Plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that he was
unlawfully detained. Id. at 9 (citing, inter alia, Marom v. Blanco, No. 15-cv-2017, 2019 WL
3338141, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019) (noting that “[a] failure to intervene claim is contingent
upon the disposition of the primary claims underlying the failure to intervene claim” (citation
omitted))). Nevertheless, for completeness, Magistrate Judge Evangelista concluded that Plaintiff
had not sufficiently alleged that Defendant Walsh had a duty to intervene because Plaintiff had not
established that Defendant Walsh is a member of law enforcement or that a special relationship
exists between Plaintiff and Defendant Walsh. Id. at 9-10 (citing, inter alia, Johnson v. New York
State Police, 659 F. Supp. 3d 237, 250 (N.D.N.Y. 2023); Imbriano v. Murray, No. 24-cv-293,
2025 WL 40844, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025)).
Fifth, to the extent that Plaintiff raises Fourth Amendment claims against Defendants
Romain and Walsh in their official capacities, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that
such claims be dismissed with prejudice as redundant because Plaintiff named the City of Syracuse
as a defendant. See id. at 13 (citing, inter alia, In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020
Demonstrations, 548 F. Supp. 3d 383, 408-09 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (noting that “courts in the Second
Circuit routinely dismiss official capacity claims against municipal officials as duplicative of the
claims against the municipality”).
Case 5:25-cv-00747-AMN-PJE Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 7

6
Sixth, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against the City
of Syracuse be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that “his
constitutional rights were violated due to an official City of Syracuse policy, a persistent and
widespread custom or practice, failure to train or supervise, or because a policy-making official’s
deliberate conduct deprived him of a constitutional right.” Id. at 14-16 (citing, inter alia, Monell
v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978); Dougal v. Lewicki, No. 23-cv-1167, 2023
WL 6430586, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2023)).
Lastly, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff be granted an opportunity
to amend his Complaint to state a valid claim for relief, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to proceed
against Defendants Romain and Walsh in their individual capacities and against the City of
Syracuse. See id. at 16-17 (citing, inter alia, Romano v. Lisson, 711 F. App’x 17, 19 (2d Cir. 2017)
(summary order) (noting that courts should not dismiss a pro se complaint “without the Court
granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication
that a valid claim might be stated”)).
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation and considered Magistrate Judge
Evangelista’s findings as to each claim, the Court finds no clear error in the Report-
Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 4, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Romain and Walsh in their official
capacities be DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; and the Court further
Case 5:25-cv-00747-AMN-PJE Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 6 of 7

7
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s claims against the City of Syracuse and Defendants Romain and
Walsh in their individual capacities, be DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to
amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing
date of this Order; and the Court further
ORDERS that, if Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, it shall be referred to
Magistrate Judge Evangelista for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint,
the Clerk is directed to close this case without further order of this Court; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 5:25-cv-00747-AMN-PJE Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 7 of 7