Charmaine Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

S.D. New York

Charmaine Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

DecidedMarch 2, 2026

Docket1:24-cv-05315

StatusUnknown

This text of Charmaine Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Charmaine Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charmaine Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CHARMAINE COOKE, Plaintiff, 24 Civ. 5315 (PAE) (RWL) -V- 24 Civ. 5316 (PAE) (RWL) CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY ORDER OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: This order resolves pro se plaintiff Charmaine Cooke’s motion for an additional adjournment—of approximately seven months—of her deadline to object to United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”). See Dkts. 114-118. On January 6, 2026, Judge Lehrburger issued the Report. Dkt. 107. It recommended dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint, in full, for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Jd. at 2. It stated, inter alia, that any party shall have 14 days to file written objections to the Report—i.e., by January 20, 2026. Id. at 19. It also stated: “Failure to file timely objections will result in a waiver of the right to object and will preclude appellate review.” Id. On January 21, 2026, the Court partly granted Cooke’s request for an extension of her deadline to object to the report, adjourning such to February 10, 2026. Dkt. 111. On February 6, 2026, the Court partly granted another request by Cooke for an extension of this deadline, adjourning it to February 24, 2026. Dkt. 113. The Court noted: “No further extensions will be granted.” Id.

On February 25, 2026, Cooke filed this request. See Dkts. 114-118. In it, she seeks to adjourn the deadline for more than seven months, from February 24, 2026 to September 30, 2026. She states that her request is due to, inter alia, past and future surgeries, her disabilities, information she expects to receive from the United States Copyright Office, and anticipated assistance from an unspecified “advocacy group.” See, e.g., Dkt. 117 at 1-3. The Court denies Cooke’s request for a third extension of her deadline to object to the Report. The Court accordingly deems written objections to the Report not to have been timely filed, as any such objections were due February 24, 2026. Dkt. 113. See, e.g., Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (“In general, failure to object timely to a magistrate’s report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision”); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992) (same); Monroe v. Hyundai, 372 F. App’x 147, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (same). The Court will issue a decision regarding the Report in due course. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Cooke at the address on file.

SO ORDERED. fanth A. Crh PAUL A. ENGELMA YER United States District Judge Dated: March 2, 2026 New York, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CHARMAINE COOKE, Plaintiff, 24 Civ. 5315 (PAE) (RWL) -V- 24 Civ. 5316 (PAE) (RWL) CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY ORDER OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: This order resolves pro se plaintiff Charmaine Cooke’s motion for an additional adjournment—of approximately seven months—of her deadline to object to United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”). See Dkts. 114-118. On January 6, 2026, Judge Lehrburger issued the Report. Dkt. 107. It recommended dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint, in full, for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Jd. at 2. It stated, inter alia, that any party shall have 14 days to file written objections to the Report—i.e., by January 20, 2026. Id. at 19. It also stated: “Failure to file timely objections will result in a waiver of the right to object and will preclude appellate review.” Id. On January 21, 2026, the Court partly granted Cooke’s request for an extension of her deadline to object to the report, adjourning such to February 10, 2026. Dkt. 111. On February 6, 2026, the Court partly granted another request by Cooke for an extension of this deadline, adjourning it to February 24, 2026. Dkt. 113. The Court noted: “No further extensions will be granted.” Id.

On February 25, 2026, Cooke filed this request. See Dkts. 114-118. In it, she seeks to adjourn the deadline for more than seven months, from February 24, 2026 to September 30, 2026. She states that her request is due to, inter alia, past and future surgeries, her disabilities, information she expects to receive from the United States Copyright Office, and anticipated assistance from an unspecified “advocacy group.” See, e.g., Dkt. 117 at 1-3. The Court denies Cooke’s request for a third extension of her deadline to object to the Report. The Court accordingly deems written objections to the Report not to have been timely filed, as any such objections were due February 24, 2026. Dkt. 113. See, e.g., Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (“In general, failure to object timely to a magistrate’s report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision”); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992) (same); Monroe v. Hyundai, 372 F. App’x 147, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (same). The Court will issue a decision regarding the Report in due course. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Cooke at the address on file.

SO ORDERED. fanth A. Crh PAUL A. ENGELMA YER United States District Judge Dated: March 2, 2026 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Charmaine Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charmaine-cooke-v-consolidated-edison-company-of-new-york-inc-nysd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack