Troy Tenace v. Jennifer Pratt, Assis. D.A., for Saratoga County, in her individual and official capacity; Meghan Horton, Assis. D.A., for Saratoga County, in her individual and official capacity; Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office; Saratoga County; Schenectady County; Schenectady County Public Defender’s Office; Julia Kosineski, Esq., in her individual and official capacity; Karen A. Crandall, Esq., in her individual and official capacity

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ TROY TENACE, Plaintiff, 1:25-CV-1697 v. (GTS/DJS) JENNIFER PRATT, Assis. D.A., for Saratoga County, in her individual and official capacity; MEGHAN HORTON, Assis. D.A., for Saratoga County, in her individual and official capacity; SARATOGA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; SARATOGA COUNTY; SCHENECTADY COUNTY; SCHNECTADY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE; JULIA KOSINESKI, ESQ., in her individual and official capacity; KAREN A. CRANDALL, ESQ., in her individual and official capacity, Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: TROY TENACE Plaintiff, Pro Se 1930 Pawtucket Ave. Niskayuna, New York 12309 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Troy Tenace (“Plaintiff”) against the Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office, the Schenectady County Public Defender’s Office, Assistant District Attorneys Jennifer Pratt and Meghan Horton, Saratoga County, Schenectady County and Public Defenders Julia Kosineski and Karen Crandall 1 (“Defendants”), are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report- Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend for failure to state a claim, and (2) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.)

After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. To those reasons, the Court adds only one brief point. Before the Court may refer Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to Magistrate Judge Stewart for a review of its pleading sufficiency, the Court must confirm with Plaintiff that he indeed intends to proceed on his Amended Complaint in this action. This is because, when he filed his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff had not yet have the benefit of the Court’s Decision and Order on

Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation. Cf. Cresci v. Mohawk Valley Community College, 693 F. App'x 21, 25 (2d Cir. June 2, 2017) (“The court's criticism of Cresci for failure to submit a proposed amended complaint before learning whether, and in what respects, the court would find deficiencies was unjustified, and the court's denial of leave to replead, simultaneously with its decision that the complaint was defective, effectively deprived Cresci of a reasonable opportunity to seek leave to amend.”). As a result, the Court will give Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to either (1) confirm that he indeed intends to proceed on his Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 7), or (2) file a revised Amended Complaint.

2 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED without further Order of this Court, unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, within the above-described 30-day time period, Plaintiff must either (1) file a letter to the Court stating that he intends to rely on his Amended Complaint filed on February 27, 2026 (Dkt. No. 7), or (2) file a revised Amended Complaint; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff do either of the above-described two things, his Amended Complaint shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for further review pursuant to 28 US.C. § 1915. Dated: May 7, 2026 drthitg— Syracuse, New York

HON. GLENNT.SUDDABY United States District Judge