Burnett v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-08725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tracy Burnett v. City of New York, Judge Cave denied without prejudice Burnett’s combined request for reconsideration and objections to an earlier order.
Plaintiff Tracy Burnett’s combined request for reconsideration and objections was denied without prejudice; the order left open the possibility of filing either request separately.
What happened
In Tracy Burnett v. City of New York, Plaintiff Tracy Burnett challenged an August 5, 2026 order about requests to recognize certain documents, add material to her opposition to the City Defendants’ dismissal motion, and refer the case to mediation.
Burnett combined a request for reconsideration with objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 in one filing. The court explained that those requests use different procedures, go to different judges, and cannot be filed together in the same document.
United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the motion without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the motion. The order said Burnett could separately seek reconsideration from Judge Cave or file objections to the August 5 order with District Judge Ronnie Abrams.
The detailed version
- Burnett v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-08725
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 20, 2026
Background
The court considered Plaintiff Tracy Burnett’s motion for “reconsideration and objection” to an August 5, 2026 order. That earlier order granted in part Burnett’s request to take judicial notice of certain documents in connection with pending motions to dismiss, denied her request to supplement her opposition to the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and declined to refer the action to the court-annexed mediation program.
Analysis
The court explained that reconsideration and objections are different procedures. A reconsideration request concerning the August 5 order would be directed to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Objections to the order under Rule 72 would instead be directed to District Judge Ronnie Abrams. The court held that Burnett could not seek both forms of review in the same document.
Ruling
Judge Cave denied Burnett’s motion without prejudice. The court stated that Burnett may file a separate motion for reconsideration addressed to Judge Cave or, alternatively, separate objections to the August 5 order addressed to Judge Abrams. The Clerk was directed to close Docket No. 144.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.