govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-3_25-cv-01710-1

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 

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 

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 wit h 
the Local Rules. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 1, 2026 

Passage view · GavelSight