Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 8, 2025

Smith v. City of New York

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:23-cv-08229
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Preliminary InjunctionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Smith v. City of New York, Judge Rochon denied Smith’s second preliminary-injunction motion after finding no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Who this affects

Myra S. Smith and the City of New York; the ruling denied Smith’s request to prevent the New York City Police Department from changing her schedule except as previously agreed.

What happened

Myra S. Smith sued the City of New York over claims involving discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and obstruction of justice. This order concerned only her second request for an immediate court order involving her work schedule.

Smith asked the court to prohibit the New York City Police Department from changing her schedule except as previously agreed. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended denying the request because Smith had not shown that she would suffer irreparable harm—harm that could not be adequately repaired later—without the order. Smith did not file objections.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. She adopted the recommendation in its entirety and denied Smith’s second motion for a preliminary injunction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Smith v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08229
Judge
Rochon
Date
Jan. 8, 2025

Background

Myra S. Smith brought claims against the City of New York alleging discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and age, as well as retaliation, harassment, and obstruction of justice.

On July 25, 2024, Smith moved for a preliminary injunction, meaning an order providing temporary relief while a case continues, based on alleged harassment by two New York City Police Department employees. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended denying that motion because Smith had not shown the required likelihood of irreparable harm without preliminary relief. The court adopted that recommendation on October 25, 2024.

Second Preliminary-Injunction Motion

On October 22, 2024, Smith filed a second motion for preliminary injunctive relief. She sought to prohibit the New York City Police Department from changing her schedule except as previously agreed. Judge Lehrburger recommended denying the second motion for the same reason as the first: Smith had not demonstrated irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.

Smith’s deadline to file written objections to the report and recommendation expired, and she filed no objections.

Review and Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Judge Jennifer L. Rochon reviewed the uncontested recommendation for clear error. Clear error exists when the reviewing court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake was made. Judge Rochon found the recommendation free from clear error, adopted it in its entirety, and denied Smith’s second motion for a preliminary injunction.

The order addressed the request for preliminary relief and did not decide the merits of Smith’s underlying claims as described in the opinion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.