OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Beth Schinella (“Plaintiff”), commenced this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983″) by the filing of her Complaint on September 26, 2019, alleging federal or state causes of action against Defendants County of Dutchess (“Dutchess County”), George Salem, Jr. (“Salem Jr.”), and Dr. Adam Soyer (“Soyer”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Complaint (“Compl.”) (ECF No. 2).) As is relevant here, the only cause of action brought against Defendant Soyer is a claim for tortious interference of contract pursuant to state law. Presently before the Court is the motion of Defendant Soyer to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). (ECF No. 33.) Defendant Soyer filed a memorandum of law in support of his motion to dismiss. (See “Def’s Mem.” (ECF No. 33).) Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Soyer’s motion to dismiss. (See “Pl’s Opp.” (ECF No. 34).) Finally, Defendant Soyer filed a memorandum of law in further support of his motion to dismiss. (See “Def’s Reply” (ECF No. 35).) For the following reasons, Soyer’s motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as against Soyer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). BACKGROUND The following facts are derived from the Complaint or matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, are taken as true, and construed in the light most favorable to pro se Plaintiff for the purposes of this motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 230 (2d Cir. 2016). Plaintiff was and is a Corrections Sergeant employed by the County of Dutchess. (Compl. 6.) On February 6, 2011, Plaintiff sustained a slip and fall injury during the course of her employment and sustained serious and permanent injuries to her right wrist and right shoulder. (Compl. 10.) Initially, Defendants Salem Jr. and Dutchess County accepted Plaintiff’s claim for Workers’ Compensation arising from the slip and fall accident. (Id. 11.) Plaintiff further alleges that, after the acceptance of her claim, she “therefore became entitled, as a term and condition of her employment contract with Defendant, County of Dutchess, to the benefits provided by the Workers’ Compensation Law of the State of New York.” (Id. 12.) She does not allege that any provision of the employment contract gave rise to this obligation, much less identify or describe such a provision. After Plaintiff’s treating physician expressed an opinion that she suffered permanent injuries, Dutchess County and Salem Jr. hired Defendant Soyer to perform a medical evaluation and, in or around September 12, 2017, Soyer agreed that Plaintiff suffered permanent injuries based on his medical examination of her. (Id.
13-18.) As a result of this finding, Plaintiff was allegedly “entitled…to a ‘schedule loss of use’ award under the Workers’ Compensation Law of the State of New York.” (Id. 19.) Again, Plaintiff does not identify or describe the contractual provision giving rise to this entitlement and seems to be obliquely alleging that this entitlement arose from New York’s Workers’ Compensation laws or regulations. Subsequently, Defendants Salem Jr. and Dutchess County hired private investigators to follow Plaintiff and record her activities, and the investigators recorded her activities and produced a report and video recordings associated with their investigation. (Id.
