Palazzo v. County of Niagara

Opinion

STATES DISTRIG> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EE FILED COP WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK S PX JUL 25 2025 SAMUAL A. PALAZZO WS sorwena9 FE STERN DisTRICT Plaintiff, v. 24-CV-626 (JLS) (MJR) COUNTY OF NIAGARA, NIAGARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY DEREK PACHECO, DEPUTY AARON CONEY, DEPUTY MITCHELL PEGAN, TROOPER MARTIN DERKOVITZ, and TROOPER JACOB WACKOWSKI, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Samual A. Palazzo commenced this action against Defendants County of Niagara, the Niagara County Sheriffs Department, Deputy Derek Pacheco, Deputy Aaron Coney, and Deputy Mitchell Pegan (collectively, the “Niagara County Defendants’), alleging that they violated his constitutional rights pursuant to federal and state law. See Dkt. 1. The Niagara County Defendants answered. Dkt. 3. On September 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added Trooper Martin Derkovitz and Trooper Jacob Wackowski as Defendants. See Dkt. 8. The Niagara County Defendants answered. Dkt. 10. But Defendants Derkovitz and Wackowski filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 14. Plaintiff responded in opposition

to the motion (Dkt. 15), and Defendants Derkovitz and Wackowski replied. Dkt. 18. Judge Roemer! held oral argument on January 22, 2025. Dkt. 20. On July 1, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court deny the motion to dismiss. Dkt. 23, at 18. The parties did not file objections. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal] Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149—50 (1985). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, and accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendation.

1 This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 4.

For the reasons stated above, and in the R&R, this Court DENIES the [14] motion to dismiss. This matter is referred back to Judge Roemer for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2025 Buffalo, New York 7_-T

HN L. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD