Abdullah v. 28th Precinct
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-00124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Abdullah v. 28th Precinct, Judge Koeltl set deadlines for responses to Abdullah’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Abdullah and the defendants. The order required the defendants to respond to Abdullah’s objection by June 30, 2025, and allowed a reply by July 14, 2025.
What happened
In Abdullah v. 28th Precinct, the court received Abdullah’s objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The attached letter asked the court to reconsider an earlier decision based on newly discovered evidence and described alleged difficulties responding to discovery while under medical care.
The court did not decide whether the objection was valid, whether the new evidence justified reconsideration, or whether any party was legally responsible for the underlying allegations. The order only set deadlines for the defendants to respond and reply.
Judge John G. Koeltl ordered that the defendants’ response was due June 30, 2025, and that the defendant could reply by July 14, 2025.
The detailed version
- Abdullah v. 28th Precinct · No. 1:24-cv-00124
- John Koeltl
- June 16, 2025
What the order addressed
The court stated that it had received Abdullah’s objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, identified as ECF No. 50. The order did not rule on the objection or adopt, reject, or modify the report and recommendation.
Contents of the attached objection
In the attached letter, Abdullah characterized the filing as an objection to an earlier decision and requested reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The letter stated that Abdullah obtained evidence on May 20, 2025, that had not previously been accessible. It also stated that vision problems and medical care had made it difficult to prepare a timely response to discovery and a motion to compel, and that Abdullah had attempted to request more time. The letter further discussed probable cause, reasonable suspicion, equal access to justice, and due process.
Those statements were contained in the objection; the order did not make findings about their truth or legal effect.
Court’s action and deadlines
The court ordered that the defendants’ response was due June 30, 2025. It also stated that the defendant could reply by July 14, 2025. The supplied opinion does not state how the court will decide the objection or when it will rule on it.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.