Opinion
CV 15-4427 (JMA)(ARL)
12-19-2019
NOEL CIAPPETTA, Plaintiff, v. BARRY SNYDER, PGD IV LLC and PGT TRUCKING, INC., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge :
Before the Court, on referral from Judge Azrack, are two motions to compel a trial date filed by pro se Plaintiff Noel Ciappetta. ECF Nos. 52, 53. Defendants Barry Snyder, PGD IV LLC and PGT Trucking, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") opposed Plaintiff's motion to compel a trial date on the basis of Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion be denied, with leave to refile.
In Plaintiff's first motion to compel a trial date dated August 6, 2019, Plaintiff sought to compel the Court to set a trial date because of "rear end serious multiple injury's [sic] I never had before incident." ECF No. 52. Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel a trial date on August 12. 2019, attaching a letter which appears to be letter to Defendants' counsel explaining his basis for refusing to settle this action. ECF No. 53. Following these submissions to the Court, Plaintiff has filed a number of letters requesting a trial date, culminating with his latest letter of November 11, 2019, in which Plaintiff proclaims "this is World War Three and nobody has ammunition like me." ECF No. 67. By order dated December 5, 2019, District Judge Azrack referred Plaintiff's motions to compel a trial, along with Defendants' motion for summary judgment to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation.
While it is clear that Plaintiff is frustrated with the process and is desirous of his day in Court, the Court is nonetheless required to address the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants on May 20, 2019. ECF No. 45. Since the summary judgment motion, which was filed on May 20, 2019, and referred to the undersigned on December 4, 2019, must be addressed before a trial date can be set, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion to compel a trial date be denied at this time.
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court via ECF, except in the case of a party proceeding pro se. Pro se Plaintiff Noel Ciappetta must file his objections in writing with the Clerk of the Court within the prescribed time period noted above. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Azrack prior to the expiration of the fourteen (14) day period for filing objections. Failure to file objections within this period waives the right to appeal the District Court's Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed R. Civ. P 72; Mejia v. Roma Cleaning, Inc., No. 17-3446, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28235, 2018 WL 4847199, at *1 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2018) ("Plaintiff has waived any objections to the Magistrate's finding" by failing to timely object); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010); Beverly v. Walker, 118 F.3d 900, 902 (2d Cir. 1997).
Counsel for Defendants is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon pro se Plaintiff forthwith and file proof of service on ECF. Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 19, 2019
/s/_________
ARLENE ROSARIO LINDSAY
United States Magistrate Judge