Tillman v. Sitek, 1:24-cv-00239

Plaintiff Garrien Tillman brought a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Niagara Falls police officers following a September 22, 2022, encounter.
Plaintiff alleged constitutional violations during his interaction with four named officers: Sitek, General, Mazur, and Grzewkowski.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
In response, Plaintiff sought permission to amend his complaint to add additional defendants and clarify allegations.
The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion to dismiss and allowing the amended complaint as to the original and some newly proposed defendants, but not all.
Both parties objected to parts of the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, triggering de novo review by the District Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion to dismiss should be denied	Complaint alleges sufficient facts for relief	Complaint is insufficient; should be dismissed	Denied; complaint stands
Whether Plaintiff should be allowed to amend complaint	Amendment clarifies claims/adds necessary parties	Amendment is untimely/impermissible as to some parties	Granted in part; denied as to Restaino, Fordy, Ligammari
Dismissal of claims against Defendant Mazur	Sufficient allegations against Mazur	No claim against Mazur	Denied; claims remain
Dismissal of certain claims against Defendants General and Grzewkowski	Allegations relate to constitutional violations	Claims based on prior occurrence or lack adequate facts	Denied; claims remain

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (clarifies a district court's discretion to review or not review unobjected portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation)