Keith Rodriguez v. Sgt. Thomas Armstrong and Margaret Harney-Mathew

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEITH RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, 9:24-cv-01248 (BKS/TWD) v. SGT. THOMAS ARMSTRONG, and MARGARET HARNEY-MATHEW,

Defendants.

Appearances: Plaintiff pro se: Keith Rodriguez 0900305506 Hudson County Jail 30-35 Hackensack Ave Kearny, NJ 07032 For Defendants: Stephen Daniel Button St. Lawrence County Attorney's Office Court Street Canton, NY 13617 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Keith Rodriguez filed this action pro se asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Thomas Armstrong and Margaret Harney-Mathew, arising out of Plaintiff’s incarceration at the St. Lawrence County Correctional Facility. (Dkt. No. 1, 9, 13). On May 1, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 29). Plaintiff filed a response on May 19, 2025, and Defendants filed a reply on May 28, 2025. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thérése Wiley Dancks who, on December 31, 2025, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. (Dkt.

No. 44). Magistrate Judge Dancks advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had “fourteen (14) days within which to file written objections to the foregoing report” and that “failure to object . . . within fourteen days will preclude appellate review.” (/d. at 16-17). No objections were filed.

As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 44) is ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that in light of the answer filed by defendants Armstrong and Harney- Mathew (Dkt. No. 45), the Clerk is directed to issue a Mandatory Pretrial Scheduling Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. fap an □ (C ans QR Dated: February 2, 2026 Brenda K. Sannes Syracuse, New York Chief U.S. District Judge