prosecution claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs claim against the County of Nassau is dismissed. III. Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. SO ORDERED. 1 . Plaintiff's argument in his opposition that, . inter alia, Defendant Ross offered perjured testimony before the grand jury, Dkt. 19 (“Opp.”) ("Defendant Ross was less than totally forthcoming in his sworn testimony before the Grand Jury.”), is an invalid attempt to use motion briefing to amend the complaint. See, e.g., Gristede's Foods, Inc. v. Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Nation, 75 Fed.R.Serv.3d 238, 2009 WL 4547792 at *12, n. 5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009) (Matsumoto, J.) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The caption of the Complaint names the
holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that a party could not use an opposition motion as a means of amending the complaint holding that hearsay statement did not constitute competent evidence and thus could not be considered in opposition to motion for summary judgment holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court holding plaintiffs reference to and attachment of franchise agreement excerpts in opposition to defendants motion did not convert motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment because plaintiff did not introduce support for arguments beyond the allegations in the complaint