Opinion
3:24-CV-37
08-22-2024
JAMIL ABDUL MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL BREEN et al., Defendants.
JAMIL ABDUL MUHAMMAD Plaintiff, Pro Se
JAMIL ABDUL MUHAMMAD Plaintiff, Pro Se
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge
On January 9, 2024, pro se plaintiff Jamil Abdul Muhammad (“plaintiff') filed this action alleging that the named defendants violated his civil rights in connection with a traffic stop that led to a trial. Dkt. No. 1. Along with his complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), Dkt. Nos. 2, 7. Plaintiff also filed several “supplements” to his pleading. Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 8.
Shortly after filing this action, plaintiff filed thirteen additional actions asserting different claims against different defendants. Those actions will be addressed separately.
On June 11, 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric granted the IFP Application and advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that the complaint be dismissed with partial leave to amend. Dkt. No. 9. As Judge Lovric explained, plaintiff might be able to plead sufficient factual matter to state an: (1) ADA claim against defendants New York State Police and/or the Schoharie Town Court; and/or (2) one or more claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Gilman in his individual capacity. Id. However, Judge Lovric determined that any of plaintiffs other claims were legally deficient and must be dismissed without leave to try to replead them. Id.
Plaintiff sought an extension of time to lodge objections to Judge Lovric's R&R. Dkt. No. 10. That request was granted. Dkt. No. 11. Thereafter, in lieu of filing any objections, plaintiff submitted two amended pleadings using this District's form complaint for a civil case. Dkt. Nos. 12, 13.
Upon review for clear error, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted in all respects. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend because it seeks relief from immune defendants and is otherwise frivolous to the extent it asserts the following: (1) claims pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 195.00 and 18 U.S.C. § 241; (2) an ADA claim against defendants Breen, Gilman, and/or Kennedy; (3) claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Breen, Schoharie Town Court, Gilman in his official capacity, the New York State Police, and Kennedy;
3. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to the extent it asserts the following: (1) an ADA claim against defendants New York State Police and Schoharie Town Court; and (2) a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Gilman in his individual capacity; and
4. Plaintiffs amended complaints (Dkt. No. 12, 13) are REFERRED to Judge Lovric for further review and appropriate action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.