RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS

JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge.

This Ruling addresses numerous pending motions on a range of matters in this case. First, Plaintiff Kenya Brown has moved [Doc. # 38] for reconsideration of the Court's Order [Doc. # 27] approving and adopting the Recommended Ruling [Doc. # 8], which dismissed Count One of the Complaint [Doc. # 1] alleging a violation of Plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendments claim and Count Three alleging a due process violation. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is granted in part, in that the Court will now consider his Objection [Doc. # 11] to the Recommended Ruling, but this Objection is overruled.

The factual allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint are set forth in the Recommended Ruling and incorporated by reference here. (See Recommended Ruling at 2-3.) Briefly, Mr. Brown alleges that Defendant, Joanne Tuttle, a prison dentist, treated his chipped tooth improperly by ignoring his complaints of severe pain as she drilled his tooth and left him with a hole in his tooth and an exposed nerve, which she refused to treat. (Id.) When Mr. Brown refused to answer further questions from Dr. Tuttle about his dental treatment, she falsely alleged that Plaintiff had inappropriately touched her during the procedure. As a result of this complaint, Mr. Brown was placed in segregation although he was later exonerated of Dr. Tuttle's allegations. (Id.)

In the Recommended Ruling, Magistrate Judge Margolis concluded that Mr. Brown had stated a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Count Two), but recommended dismissal of Count One alleging that Dr. Tuttle's allegation against him was retaliation in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, because Mr. Brown alleged that the "retaliation occurred before his protected activity" of filing a grievance and lawsuit against Dr. Tuttle and thus there was "no factual basis . . . for finding that defendant's action was taken in response to speech or conduct by plaintiff." (Id. at 3.) Magistrate Judge Margolis also recommended dismissal of Count Three alleging a due process violation, because Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that he was deprived of a protected liberty interest because inmates "have no protected interest in not being falsely accused" and, as Plaintiff was ultimately exonerated of the charges against him, no deprivation occurred. (Id. at 5 (citing Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 862 (2d Cir. 1997).)

The Court reviews objections to a magistrate judge's ruling on dispositive motions de novo.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff's Objection to the Recommended Ruling describes the "factual basis that remedies" the deficiencies in Count One2 identified in the Recommended Ruling, explaining that Dr. Tuttle was aware that Mr. Brown had filed a previous lawsuit against Dr. Tuttle's predecessor as prison dentist and thus once she "was aware that she had gone overboard and cause[d] serious injury," Dr. Tuttle decided "to take fight" and "made false allegations and refused to assist plaintiff after drilling a very deep hole in his mouth." (Pl.'s Obj. at 1-2.) Dr. Tuttle made these allegations, because she knew that Mr. Brown had "the ambition to protest his constitutional rights through avenues of the court." (Id.)

Plaintiff's Objection does not contend that there was any error in the Recommended Ruling, but rather attempts to set forth supplemental facts in support of the Complaint. The appropriate means to do so is by moving for leave to file an amended complaint, not by setting forth allegations in legal memoranda. While this Objection was pending, Plaintiff filed two motions [Doc. ## 32, 65] to amend his complaint to include additional factual content, both of which were denied [Doc. ## 53, 76] without prejudice to renew after a ruling on this Objection. Because Plaintiff has not identified any error in the Recommended Ruling, his objection is overruled but Plaintiff may now refile his motion for leave to amend the complaint, setting forth the factual content and claims that he seeks to pursue in light of the current posture of this case.3

Plaintiff has also filed two motions [Doc. ## 36, 37], requesting a pretrial conference with the Court. Given that Plaintiff has now moved for summary judgment and for leave to amend the Complaint since filing these motions, these motions are denied as moot without prejudice to renew if Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 38] is GRANTED in part; his Objection [Doc. # 11] to the Recommended Ruling is OVERRULED; the "Motion [Doc. # 39] for Judgment and Order" is DENIED as moot; the Motions for Order and Scheduling Plan [Doc. ## 36, 37] are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.