Obah v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-04997
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Obah v. City of New York, Judge Woods granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, ending some claims while allowing others to continue.
Patrick C. Obah’s claims against the City of New York and the other defendants were divided: some claims were dismissed without leave to amend, while the national-origin discrimination claims identified in the order remained pending.
What happened
In Obah v. City of New York, Patrick C. Obah sued the City of New York and other defendants. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Obah’s civil-rights claims and discrimination claims based on race, color, and religion, while allowing his national-origin discrimination claims under federal, state, and city law to continue.
No party objected to the recommendation within the required time. The district court reviewed it for clear error and found none. The court also considered whether Obah should be allowed to amend the dismissed claims again, noting that earlier amendments had not corrected the identified problems.
Judge Gregory H. Woods adopted the recommendation in full. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, leave to amend the dismissed claims was denied, and Obah was denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees on any appeal.
The detailed version
- Obah v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-04997
- Gregory Woods
- July 2, 2025
Background
The defendants moved to dismiss Patrick C. Obah’s amended complaint. On June 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Stewart Aaron issued a report and recommendation advising the district court to grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
The recommendation concluded that Obah failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, and failed to state federal and state discrimination claims based on race, color, and religion. It recommended denying dismissal of Obah’s claims under Title VII and New York State and New York City human-rights laws alleging discrimination based on national origin.
Review of the Recommendation
The parties had fourteen days to submit written objections. No objection was filed during that period. Obah stated that he accepted and adopted the recommendation. Judge Woods therefore reviewed the unobjected-to portions for clear error and found none. The court accepted and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.
Leave to Amend
The report and recommendation did not address whether Obah should be allowed to amend the dismissed claims. The court explained that leave to amend is usually allowed after dismissal, but may be denied for reasons such as repeated failure to fix pleading problems or the futility of another amendment.
The court found that another report and recommendation had already addressed an earlier motion to dismiss. Except for the national-origin claims, which the recommendation said were supported by additional allegations in Obah’s opposition brief, the amended complaint had not corrected the deficiencies previously identified. The court also found that Obah had not explained how another amendment would cure the problems identified twice. Accordingly, the court denied leave to amend as to the dismissed claims.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The race-, color-, religion-, and § 1983-based claims were dismissed under the adopted recommendation, while the national-origin discrimination claims under Title VII and New York State and New York City human-rights laws were not dismissed by that motion. The court denied leave to amend the dismissed claims.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail Obah a copy of the order by certified mail.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.