DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Richard Peterkin (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned entity and two individuals (“Defendants”) arising from an arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff, is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 8.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND A. Plaintiff’s Complaint Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges as follows. On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff, an African-American man, was arrested by Defendant Anthony Pirrone (“Pirrone”) on a charge of Inciting to Riot. (Dkt. No. 1, 2 [Pl.'s Compl.].) The charge stemmed from an incident that had taken place early on the morning of March 5, 2017, at a venue called Spare Time in Halfmoon, New York, in Saratoga County. (Id., 19.) Plaintiff had been hired to work as a disc jockey at a party at Spare Time that was “mostly attended by African-Americans and Latinos.” (Id., 21.) The party was eventually broken up and shut down by the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department. (Id., 22.) Two days later, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with Inciting to Riot in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §240.08, a class A misdemeanor. (Id., 27.) Plaintiff was “maliciously charged and prosecuted” by Pirrone and suffered “significant injuries as a result of the arrest and prosecution.” (Id., 5.) Pirrone’s malicious purpose and intent in bringing the charge was shared by Defendants Saratoga County (“County”) and Sheriff Michael H. Zurlo (“Zurlo”). (Id., 29.) Defendants “lacked probable cause to believe” that Plaintiff had “engaged in any conduct that could have constituted the offense of Inciting to Riot or any other offense.” (Id., 34.) As a result of Pirrone’s actions, which were taken on behalf of himself and on behalf of the County and Zurlo, Plaintiff was held in custody for several hours, fingerprinted, and photographed. (Id., 30.) Furthermore, because Plaintiff was required to appear in court on “numerous occasions,” his “liberty was constrained and infringed upon for the entire period of time the charge was pending from March 7, 2017 until October 11, 2017,” when the charge was ultimately dismissed. (Id.,
