DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction Plaintiff, an attorney with the Defendant Erie County’s Department of Social Services, alleges civil rights violations, defamation, and other common law torts against his employers, Erie County Social Services Department director of legal affairs Marni Bogart and Erie County, following his public removal from his office. Before this Court is Defendants’ joint Motion for Summary Judgment1 (Docket No. 18) to dismiss this action. Defendants here contend that all of Plaintiff’s claims arise from three incidents of February 25, 2016: Plaintiff’s escorted removal from his Rath Building office in front of coworkers and colleagues; Bogart’s informing Erie County Family Judge Margaret Szczur that Plaintiff would not return to work for the foreseeable future; and Bogart telling Family Court security officers to bar Plaintiff’s entry into the courthouse because he was dangerous (Docket No. 18, Defs. Memo. at 12-13). For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 18) is granted as to the First Cause of Action only and the remaining claims are remanded to New York Supreme Court for further proceedings. II. Background A. Facts This is a removed federal civil rights action under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff also alleges state common law defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The parties dispute whether the facts asserted by Defendants in this motion are undisputed or material (compare Docket No. 18, Defs. Statement with Docket No. 29, Pl. Response to Defs. Statement and Statement of Additional Facts (Corrected) with Docket No. 30, Defs. Response to Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a) Statement of Additional Facts). Often in his response, Plaintiff challenges the admissibility of the asserted facts (see generally Docket No. 29, Pl. Response). Plaintiff provides detailed objections and his own submitted set of facts (id.) which Defendants respond thereto (Docket No. 30, Defs. Response to Pl’s Statement). This Court will refer to Defendants’ version of events and note, where pertinent, Plaintiff’s objections. 1. Events Leading to Plaintiff’s Removal From 2015, Plaintiff was accused by his colleagues of making menacing statements and gestures threatening gun violence. Employees alleged that Plaintiff said in anger, after a search of his office, “words to the effect of ‘one Glock, one minute’” (Docket No. 18, Defs. Statement
12, 13-20, 22, 24). Plaintiff denies making that statement (Docket No. 29, Pl. Response 24). Prior to an active shooter training conducted by Defendant, Plaintiff reportedly said the training consisted of “first you run, then hide, then fight. If that fails, convince them to shoot your boss” (Docket No. 18, Defs. Statement
