Smith v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-08229
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smith v. City of New York, Judge Rochon denied Myra S. Smith’s request for more time to file objections, leaving the prior order in place.
Myra S. Smith’s request for additional time to object was denied, and the prior order adopting the recommendation to deny her preliminary-injunction motion remained in place.
What happened
Myra S. Smith asked for more time to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that her request for a preliminary injunction be denied. The district court had already adopted that recommendation after receiving no timely objections.
The court later gave Smith until November 27, 2024, to file objections and said it would reconsider its earlier order if she did so. She did not file objections by that deadline but requested another extension on November 26.
Judge Rochon denied the additional extension because the court found no good cause. The court said it would not reconsider its earlier order adopting the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Smith v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08229
- Rochon
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
Myra S. Smith moved for a preliminary injunction on July 25, 2024. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, or R&R—a recommended decision for the district judge—on October 1, 2024, recommending that the motion be denied. The district court adopted the R&R in full on October 25, 2024, after receiving no timely objections.
Smith had requested an extension of time to object on October 22, but the request was not docketed until October 28, after the court had adopted the R&R. On October 30, the court ordered Smith to file objections by November 27 and stated that it would reconsider its order adopting the R&R if timely objections were filed. Smith filed no objections by that deadline. She instead filed another extension request on November 26, 2024.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon concluded that Smith had not shown good cause for another extension. The court denied Smith’s request for an extension to file objections and stated that it would not reconsider its prior order adopting the R&R. This order addressed the timing request and reconsideration of the earlier order; it did not revisit the merits of the preliminary-injunction request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.