DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) filed by Kevin D. Checksfield (“Plaintiff”) against the Internal Revenue Service (“Defendant”), are Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (Dkt. No. 52 [Plf.'s Motion]), and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (Dkt. No. 53 [Def.'s Motion]). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied, Defendant’s motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND A. Plaintiff’s First Complaint Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant on October 29, 2021. (Dkt. No. 1 [Plf.'s Comp.].) In general, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983″) and FOIA. (Id.) On January 27, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) for failure to plead his claims with specificity, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Dkt. No. 18 [Def.'s First Mot.].) In a Decision and Order dated July 13, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claim under Section 1983. (Dkt. No. 24 [Decision and Order].) In addition, the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claim under FOIA, unless, within 30 days, he filed an Amended Complaint that cured the defects identified in the Decision and Order. (Id.) B. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his Complaint, with a proposed Amended Complaint attached. (Dkt. No. 25 [Mot. to Amend/Correct Comp.].) Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motion, and argued that the proposed Amended Complaint did not cure the defects identified by the Court in its July 13, 2022, Decision and Order. (Dkt. No. 26 [Def,'s Mot. in Opp.].) On November 18, 2022, during a hearing held before Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric, Plaintiff’s motion to amend was granted, and his proposed Amended Complaint was accepted for filing. (Dkt. No. 31 [Text Order, Nov. 18, 2022].) In general, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant violated FOIA, violated its own administrative procedures by not deciding his request within normal processing times, and acted in “Bad Faith” when it “arbitrarily” denied his FOIA request for the personal tax records of an individual, S.B., and the business tax records of S.B.’s law firm. (See generally Dkt. No. 25, Attach. 1 [Amended Complaint].) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint seeks an order from the Court compelling Defendant to give him access to the specific records he requested in his FOIA request. (Id.) In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks “an appropriate avenue to an alternative solution,” such as the Court’s in camera review of the records, or a “monetary solution.” (Id.) Defendants filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint on December 15, 2022. (Dkt. No. 34.) Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on June 26, 2023. (Dkt. No. 52 [Plf.'s Mot.].) Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on June 30, 2023. (Dkt. No. 53 [Def.'s Mot.].) Defendant responded in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on July 17, 2023. (Dkt. No. 55 [Def.'s Resp.].) Plaintiff responded in opposition to Defendant’s motion on July 20, 2023. (Dkt. No. 56 [Plf.'s Resp.].) Plaintiff replied to Defendant’s response to his motion on July 24, 2023. (Dkt. No. 57 [Plf.'s Reply].) Defendant replied to Plaintiff’s response to its motion on August 4, 2023. (Dkt. No. 60 [Def.'s Reply].) Familiarity with the above-discussed claims and the factual allegations supporting them in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the relevant procedural history, is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties. C. Undisputed Material Facts Before reciting the material facts of this case, the Court notes that, generally, Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts is not in compliance with Local Rule 56.1(a) for three reasons. First, his statement is not set forth “in numbered paragraphs,” with a “short and concise statement of each material fact about which the moving party contends there exists no genuine issue.” N.D.N.Y.L.R. 56.1(a). Second, Plaintiff’s statement generally contains a mixture of legal arguments and impermissible commentary. (See generally Dkt. No. 52, Attach. 2 [Plf.'s Stat.].) Third, when Plaintiff does assert facts, he often fails to provide accurate record citations to support those facts. (Id.) Simply, the Court notes that, generally, Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts violates Local Rule 56.1(b) for ___ reasons. First, he often fails to either expressly admit or deny the fact that Defendant asserts. (See generally Dkt. No. 56, Attach. 2 [Plf.'s Resp. to Def.'s Stat].) Second, Plaintiff often uses improper citations to support his responses, such as his unsworn Statement of Material Facts in his own motion for summary judgment. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 56, Attach 2, at
