Maurer et al v. Zulauf et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
REBEKAH J. MAURER, LAUREN C.
MAURER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GARRETT D. ZULAUF, ST. LAWRENCE
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT.,
Defendants.
8:26-cv-00359 (AMN/MJK)
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
REBEKAH J. MAURER
LAUREN C. MAURER
P.O. Box 1110 ACP 5749
Albany, NY 12201
Plaintiffs pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On March 6, 2026, plaintiffs pro se Rebekah Maurer and Lauren Maurer (“Plaintiffs”)
commenced this action against defendants Garrett D. Zulauf (“Zulauf”) and the St. Lawrence
County Sheriff’s Department (the “Department”), alleging violations of their Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights arising from a traffic stop. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiffs
also filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and for the appointment of counsel. Dkt.
Nos. 2, 3, 6.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz, who granted
Plaintiffs’ requests to proceed IFP and reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dkt.
Case 8:26-cv-00359-AMN-MJK Document 9 Filed 06/02/26 Page 1 of 6

2
No. 8 at 2 (“Report-Recommendation”).1 On April 30, 2026, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended
that this Court dismiss the Complaint and grant leave to amend as to certain of Plaintiffs’ claims.
Id. at 17-18. Magistrate Judge Katz also denied Plaintiffs’ motion for the appointment of counsel
without prejudice. 	Id. at 13-15, 17. 	Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Magistrate Judge Katz
advised that the parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure
object to the Report-Recommendation within those fourteen days would preclude appellate review.
Id. at 18. No party has filed objections, and the time for filing objections has expired.
For the following reasons, 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)).
1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s
electronic filing system.
Case 8:26-cv-00359-AMN-MJK Document 9 Filed 06/02/26 Page 2 of 6

3
“[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. 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.
As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended that this Court dismiss the
Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend to the extent that it brings a claim against
the St. Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department because municipal departments are not separate
legal entities. Dkt. No. 8 at 8-10; see, e.g., Gray v. Coeymans Police Dep’t, No. 1:16-CV-1239,
2020 WL 871179, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2020) (“[I]t is well-settled that an administrative arm
of a municipality, such as the Police Department . . . , cannot sue or be sued because it does not
exist separate and apart from the municipality and does not have its own legal identity.”) (internal
quotes and citations omitted)). Then, construing the Complaint liberally, Magistrate Judge Katz
Case 8:26-cv-00359-AMN-MJK Document 9 Filed 06/02/26 Page 3 of 6

4
interpreted it to suggest that Plaintiffs intended to name St. Lawrence County as a defendant. Dkt.
No. 8 at 9. To the extent that Plaintiffs so intended, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended that the
Complaint be dismissed as against St. Lawrence County without prejudice for failure to state a
claim. Id. at 9-10 (citing Kurtz v. Hansell, No. 20-CV-3401, 2021 WL 1143619, at *18 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 24, 2021)).
Relatedly, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended that this Court dismiss the Complaint with
prejudice and without leave to amend to the extent that it brings a claim against Defendant Zulauf
in his official capacity as a deputy employed by the Department. Dkt. No. 8 at 10-11. Because
suits against municipal officers in their official capacity generally represent “another way of
pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent,” Kentucky v. Graham, 473
U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985) (internal citation omitted), courts typically dismiss such claims as
duplicative of claims against the municipality, Dkt. No. 8 at 10-11 (citing Tuff v. Vill. of Yorkville
Police Dep’t, No. 16-CV-473, 2017 WL 401241, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2017)).
As to the remainder of the Complaint, including to the extent that Plaintiffs intended to
pursue claims against Defendant Zulauf in his individual capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Magistrate Judge Katz recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice
for lack of compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. 	Id. at 5-8. 	Magistrate
Judge Katz found that the Complaint failed to allege “when the traffic stop took place, whether
Defendant Zulauf, or some other law enforcement officer, issued Plaintiffs the citation they
complain about” and who exactly “asked Plaintiffs for their identification and/or ‘held’ them.” Id.
at 6 (citing Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 4). Furthermore, Magistrate Judge Katz found that the Complaint failed
to clarify whether the operators of “two sheriff vehicles” and a “border patrol vehicle,” or “a NY
State Trooper” were defendants in Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for failure to intervene. Id. at 7
Case 8:26-cv-00359-AMN-MJK Document 9 Filed 06/02/26 Page 4 of 6

5
(citing Dkt. No. 1 at 3). Magistrate Judge Katz also found that the Complaint’s failure to allege
the date of the traffic stop prevented an analysis of whether Plaintiffs’ claims were timely filed.
Id. at 7-8.
Therefore, except for Plaintiffs’ claims against the Department and against Defendant
Zulauf in his official capacity, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended that the Court grant Plaintiffs
leave to amend and further advised Plaintiffs that any such amended complaint must comply with
Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 15-16.
After reviewing the Report-Recommendation and considering Magistrate Judge Katz’s
findings, 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 to the extent that it alleges claims against the St. Lawrence County Sheriff’s
Department and Defendant Zulauf in his official capacity, Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, be
DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that the remainder of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, 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 Plaintiffs timely file an amended complaint, it shall be referred to
Magistrate Judge Katz for review; and if Plaintiffs fail to file a timely amended complaint, the
Clerk is directed to close this case without further order of this Court; and the Court further
Case 8:26-cv-00359-AMN-MJK Document 9 Filed 06/02/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 8:26-cv-00359-AMN-MJK Document 9 Filed 06/02/26 Page 6 of 6