MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Xiamin Zeng, brought this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and New York state law against Detective Danielle Febus, Inspector John Chell, Detective Gary DeNezzo, Sergeant George Tavares, Officer Irwin Luerpon, Officer Erlene Wiltshire, Officer Christopher Robley, and the City of New York (the “City”), alleging false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, abuse of criminal process, municipal liability, and denial of medical treatment. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 1, 2022, this Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Zeng v. Chell, No. 19-cv-3218, 2022 WL 624873, at *1, *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2021) (“March Opinion”). This Court dismissed Zeng’s Section 1983 claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of a right to a fair trial, malicious abuse of process, and municipal liability in their entirety. See March Opinion, at *4-6. There are no claims remaining against Detective Gary DeNezzo, Sergeant George Tavares, Police Officer Irwin Luperon, Police Officer Christopher Robley, or Police Officer Erlene Wiltshire. See ECF No. 109.1 Zeng’s remaining claims are against Detective Febus for excessive force and deliberate indifference to unconstitutional conditions of confinement under Section 1983, and assault and battery against Detective Febus and the City under New York state law. The defendants now move for summary judgment dismissing each claim and in addition, contend that Detective Febus is entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants further request that the Court deny supplemental jurisdiction if the federal claims are dismissed. In response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff did not attempt to defend her federal claims or respond to the argument that Detective Febus was protected by qualified immunity. Rather, the plaintiff only defended her claims of assault, battery, and excessive force. See ECF No. 120 at 10-11. At the argument on the motion on December 20, 2023, the plaintiff’s counsel made it clear that the plaintiff abandoned her federal claims, see Hearing Tr. at 10-11, and requested that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims of excessive force, assault, and battery under New York state law, see id. at 11. I. The following facts are taken from the parties’ Local Rule 56.1 Statements and supporting papers and are undisputed unless otherwise noted. The plaintiff, Xiamin Zeng, was called to the police station on January 31, 2018 in response to a text message informing her that her son was at the Queens Child Abuse Squad and asking her to pick him up. See ECF No. 117
5-5A. When she arrived, at approximately 12:00 p.m., id.
