DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Represented by counsel, plaintiff Macario Gilberto Reyes-Herrera (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that defendants Jason J. Flaitz (“Flaitz”), Barbara M. Crosby (“Crosby”), and Marci A. Trimble (“Trimble”) (collectively “Defendants”) violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizures and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. (Dkt. 1). Pending before the Court are the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. 45; Dkt. 46). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in favor of any party, and accordingly denies both motions in their entirety. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background The following facts are derived from Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 45-45) (“Plaintiff’s Statement”), Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 46-2) (“Defendants’ Statement”), and Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Statement (Dkt. 50-1). The Court notes that, despite having been granted an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment over Plaintiff’s objection (see Dkt. 48; Dkt. 49; Dkt. 51; Dkt. 52), Defendants failed to file any such response, including any response to Plaintiff’s Statement. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)(2) provides that “[e]ach numbered paragraph in the moving party’s statement of material facts may be deemed admitted for purposes of the motion unless it is specifically controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in [an] opposing statement.” Although a district court should not deem unopposed facts to be admitted when those facts are unsupported by the record, Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2001), a district court has discretion to deem facts admitted for lack of compliance with its local rules, see N.Y. State Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret. Fund v. Express Servs., Inc., 426 F.3d 640, 648-49 (2d Cir. 2005) (it was within district court’s discretion to deem the moving party’s statement of material facts admitted where the opposing party “offered mostly conclusory denials” and “failed to include any record citations” contrary to the district’s local rules); Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30, 31 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) (because plaintiff failed to respond to defendant’s statement of material facts submitted in accordance with local rules, “the material facts contained in his statement are deemed to be admitted as a matter of law”). Accordingly, the Court has accepted as true the facts set forth in Plaintiff’s Statement, to the extent they are (1) supported by the evidence of record and (2) not directly controverted by Defendants’ Statement and the exhibits submitted in support thereof. Where a fact is disputed, the Court has noted the same. A. Defendants’ Background and Training At the times relevant to the instant action, Flaitz was employed by the New York State Police (the “NYSP”) as a trooper assigned to SP North Hornell, Crosby was employed by the NYSP as a trooper assigned to SP Dundee, and Trimble was employed by the NYSP as a sergeant assigned to SP Bath. (Dkt. 45-45 at
3-5). Flaitz is a user of social media, and the record reflects that: (1) on November 24, 2018, he shared on his personal Facebook page a video titled “#Refugee Invasion” appearing to show a helicopter above a group of people on the border between Mexico and Guatemala; (2) on December 16, 2018, he shared on his personal Facebook page a video titled “Schumer Confesses” appearing to show former President Donald Trump and Senator Charles Schumer sitting in the Oval Office and discussing Senator Schumer’s positions on border security; (3) also on December 16, 2018, he posted a note on Facebook indicating that “Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party” were responsible for “giving annuity payments to immigrants” and that the Democratic Party have immigrants Social Security payments at age 65 “even though they never payed a dime into it.” (Id. at
