Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 3, 2025

Kerim v. Mezic

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:24-cv-05599
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kerim v. Mezic, Judge Garnett adopted the recommendation, denying motions 17 and 21 as moot and granting motions 25 and 26.

Who this affects

The parties and the four pending motions identified at Docket Nos. 17, 21, 25, and 26 were affected by the order.

What happened

In Kerim v. Mezic, the court referred several pending motions to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for a recommendation after a case-management conference.

Judge Ricardo issued his recommendation, and the parties were told they had 14 days to object. No one filed an objection.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. The court denied motions 17 and 21 as moot, granted motions 25 and 26, and directed the Clerk to close those four motions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kerim v. Mezic · No. 1:24-cv-05599
Judge
Garnett
Date
Jan. 3, 2025

Background

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for general pretrial matters and for a report and recommendation on motions filed at Docket Nos. 17, 21, 25, and 26. After a case-management conference, Judge Ricardo issued a Report and Recommendation on December 18, 2024.

Review of the Recommendation

The recommendation informed the parties that objections had to be filed within 14 days under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). No timely objections were filed. When no timely objection is made, the district court may adopt the recommendation if the record does not show clear error. The court reviewed the record and found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Garnett adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied as moot the motions at Docket Nos. 17 and 21 and granted the motions at Docket Nos. 25 and 26. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket Nos. 17, 21, 25, and 26. The opinion does not state what those motions concerned or provide the reasons given in the Report and Recommendation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.