United States District Court, E.D. New York
Cassandra Cosgrief Plaintiff Pro Se.
Suffolk County Attorney's Office Counsel for the
Defendants By: Arlene S. Zwilling, Assistant County Attorney.
D. SPATT United States District Judge.
January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff Cassandra Cosgrief commenced
this civil rights action against Suffolk County; the Suffolk
County Police Department; and an individual police officer,
namely, Robert L. Spadaccini, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
analogous provisions of New York State law.
February 11, 2016, the Defendants filed an answer
substantially denying the Plaintiff's allegations.
17, 2016, counsel for the Plaintiff, namely, the Law Offices
of Sandra M. Radna, P.C., filed a motion under Local Civil
Rule 1.4 to be relieved as counsel in this matter.
6, 2016, the Court granted that motion, and stayed this case
for a period of 30 days to permit the Plaintiff to retain new
counsel or advise the Court that she intended to proceed
Plaintiff never responded to this directive, and she was
deemed to have elected to proceed with this matter pro
October 6, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Steven I.
Locke held an initial discovery conference, which had been
scheduled several months earlier on June 17, 2016. After the
Plaintiff failed to appear, Judge Locke adjourned the
conference date to October 24, 2016.
October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff failed again to appear for
the discovery conference. Judge Locke, recognizing that the
Plaintiff had apparently failed to keep the court apprised of
her current address, further adjourned the conference date to
December 16, 2016, and advised the Plaintiff in a written
order that “[r]epeated failures to appear may result in
a Recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to
December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff failed for the third time to
appear as directed. Thus, on December 19, 2016, Judge Locke
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),
recommending that, in view of the Plaintiff's repeated
failure to appear for the scheduled conference, the complaint
be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
about December 20, 2016, the Clerk of the Court attempted to
serve the Plaintiff with a copy of the R&R by mail at her
last known address. However, the mailing was returned as
date, the Plaintiff has neither responded to the R&R nor
otherwise participated in this action.
the Court notes that “[i]t is the plaintiff's
responsibility to keep the Court informed of [her] current
address.” Ramero v. Young, No. 11-cv-509, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111603, at 6-*7 (W.D.N.Y. July 18, 2013)
(Report and Recommendation), adopted, 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 111103 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2014) (dismissing
pro se plaintiff's § 1983 complaint for
failure to prosecute where he failed to provide the Court
with an updated address where he could be served); see
Rivera v. Ramos, No. 13-cv-7785, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
58230, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015) (Report and
Recommendation) (noting that “it is not the Court's
obligation to track down ...