Abdul H. Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, et al.

S.D. New York

Abdul H. Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, et al.

DecidedNovember 24, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00139

StatusUnknown

This text of Abdul H. Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, et al. (Abdul H. Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abdul H. Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ABDUL H. ABDULLAH, Plaintiff, 24-CV-139 (JPO) -v- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND SERGEANT SEYED N. HUDA, et al, RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff Abdul H. Abdullah, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 5, 2024, seeking damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1989 for violations of his civil rights in connection with a traffic stop and subsequent arrest by the New York Police Department. (ECF No. 5.) In August 2024, Plaintiff was served by Defendants with interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff failed to respond to those requests despite Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis’s ordering Plaintiff to do so and warning Plaintiff that failure to do so could result in his case being dismissed. (ECF No. 35.) On June 9, 2025, Defendants City of New York, Carlos Garcia, and Seyed N. Huda’s (collectively, “Defendants”) moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 41(b) and 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 47.) On October 20, 2025, Magistrate Judge Willis issued a careful and comprehensive Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in the matter suggesting that this Court grant Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 52.) This Court has reviewed the R&R. No party filed a timely objection to the R&R; therefore, the Court reviews it for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Borcsok v. Early, 299 F. App’x 76, 77 (2d Cir. 2008). Magistrate Judge Willis’s well-reasoned R&R presents no such errors and is therefore fully adopted by this Court. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 47) is granted, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rules 41(b) and 37(b)(2). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF No. 41 and ECF No. 47 and to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 24, 2025 New York, New York

| ] J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ABDUL H. ABDULLAH, Plaintiff, 24-CV-139 (JPO) -v- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND SERGEANT SEYED N. HUDA, et al, RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff Abdul H. Abdullah, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 5, 2024, seeking damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1989 for violations of his civil rights in connection with a traffic stop and subsequent arrest by the New York Police Department. (ECF No. 5.) In August 2024, Plaintiff was served by Defendants with interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff failed to respond to those requests despite Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis’s ordering Plaintiff to do so and warning Plaintiff that failure to do so could result in his case being dismissed. (ECF No. 35.) On June 9, 2025, Defendants City of New York, Carlos Garcia, and Seyed N. Huda’s (collectively, “Defendants”) moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 41(b) and 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 47.) On October 20, 2025, Magistrate Judge Willis issued a careful and comprehensive Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in the matter suggesting that this Court grant Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 52.) This Court has reviewed the R&R. No party filed a timely objection to the R&R; therefore, the Court reviews it for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Borcsok v. Early, 299 F. App’x 76, 77 (2d Cir. 2008). Magistrate Judge Willis’s well-reasoned R&R presents no such errors and is therefore fully adopted by this Court. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 47) is granted, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rules 41(b) and 37(b)(2). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF No. 41 and ECF No. 47 and to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 24, 2025 New York, New York

| ] J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Abdul H. Abdullah v. Sergeant Seyed N. Huda, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdul-h-abdullah-v-sergeant-seyed-n-huda-et-al-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack