Opinion
1:19-CV-1072
12-17-2021
MARIAH LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL REGION TRANSPORTION AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
Mariah Lopez, Plaintiff pro se. Monaco Cooper Lamme & Carr, PLLC, Attorneys for defendant CDTA. Goldberg Segalla, Attorneys for defendant City of Watervliet. MICHELLE STORM, ESQ. THOMAS ARMSTRONG, ESQ.
APPEARANCES:
Mariah Lopez, Plaintiff pro se.
Monaco Cooper Lamme & Carr, PLLC, Attorneys for defendant CDTA.
Goldberg Segalla, Attorneys for defendant City of Watervliet.
OF COUNSEL:
MICHELLE STORM, ESQ.
THOMAS ARMSTRONG, ESQ.
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION & ORDER
CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL, United States Magistrate Judge.
On September 24, 2021, defendant City of Watervliet filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 41 (b) and 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Dkt. No. 43. Plaintiff's response was due by October 15, 2021. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response.
On September 24, 2021, defendant Capital District Transportation Authority (“CDTA”) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b). Dkt. No. 44. Plaintiff's response to that motion was due by October 15, 2021. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response.
On December 2, 2021, the Court issued an amended court note scheduling oral argument on both motions for December 9, 2021, at 10:30 A.M. Counsel for defendant City of Watervliet and counsel for defendant CDTA, sued here as Capital Region Transportation Authority, appeared for that conference. Dkt. Entry dated Dec. 9, 20201. Plaintiff failed to appear. Id. The transcript of that proceeding is annexed to this Report-Recommendation & Order. See also Dkt. No. 48. As directed during that conference, and for the reasons stated a that time, which are incorporated herein by reference, it is hereby:
RECOMMENDED, that defendant City of Watervliet's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and 37(b)(2), dkt. no. 43, be GRANTED; and it is further
RECOMMENDED, that the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant CDTA, sued herein as Capital Region Transportation Authority, dkt. no. 44, be GRANTED; and it is
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this Report-Recommendation & Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties have FOURTEEN (14) days within which to file written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72 & 6(a).
If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Report-Recommendation & Order by mail, three (3) additional days will be added to the fourteen (14) day period, meaning that you have seventeen (17) days from the date the Report-Recommendation & Order was mailed to you to serve and file objections. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(D). IF THE LAST DAY OF THAT PRESCRIBED PERIOD FALLS ON A SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY, THEN THE DEADLINE IS EXTENDED UNTIL THE END OF THE NEXT DAY THAT IS NOT A SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY. See id. § 6(a)(1)(c).