Alhalemi v. City University of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-06975
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alhalemi v. City University of New York, Judge Schofield adopted a report and denied as moot both motions to amend and dismiss.
Bashir Alhalemi and the City University of New York; the court’s order resolved both pending motions as moot but did not decide the merits of the claims.
What happened
In Alhalemi v. City University of New York, Bashir Alhalemi asked to file an amended complaint, and the City University of New York moved to dismiss his original complaint. A magistrate judge later allowed Alhalemi to file the amended complaint, which he did.
The magistrate judge recommended denying both motions as moot because the amended complaint had been filed. No timely objections were filed to that recommendation.
Judge Schofield found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, and denied as moot both Alhalemi’s motion to amend and the University’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to close those motions.
The detailed version
- Alhalemi v. City University of New York · No. 1:24-cv-06975
- Lorna Schofield
- July 29, 2025
Background
Bashir Alhalemi moved for leave to file an amended complaint on October 18, 2024. On March 25, 2025, the City University of New York moved to dismiss the original complaint. On April 2, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted Alhalemi’s request to file an amended complaint as of right, and Alhalemi filed the amended complaint on April 23, 2025.
Report and Recommendation
On May 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky recommended that Alhalemi’s motion to amend and the University’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot because Alhalemi had already filed the amended complaint. No timely objections were filed. Without a timely objection, the district court reviewed the report for clear error on the face of the record.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error and adopted the report. The court denied as moot Alhalemi’s motion to amend his complaint and denied as moot the University’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Entries 12 and 37. This order did not decide the merits of the claims or the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.