Opinion
3:23-cv-5137 MJP
07-19-2023
TONY AND BARBARA PATRINICOLA, Plaintiff, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A NEW JUDGE
Marsha J. Pechman, United States Senior District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Judge. (Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. The substance of Plaintiffs' Motion asks for a status report on their case and suggests that if a hearing has yet to be scheduled than Plaintiffs request a new judge. (Motion at 1.) Following this, Plaintiff Tony Patrinicola sent a letter stating he was delayed in receiving a copy of the Court's Order requiring the parties to submit a joint status report (Dkt. No. 24), and therefore did not realize the Court had acted prior to his Motion. (See Letter filed by Tony Patrinicola (Dkt. No. 27.) In a later letter treated as Plainitffs' Reply brief, Mr. Patrinicola clarifies that his initial letter, which was treated as a motion for a new judge, was not in fact a motion and Plaintiffs are not requesting a new judge. For this reason, the Court finds the Motion MOOT.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.