Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case

I found very recently that on 3/11/15 the magistrate judge of my case in New York has written this to the district judge recommending a dismissal with prejudice to my case for "failure to prosecute". He does not mention what I wrote to the court (doc 5 and doc 6) about the problem with the validity of the summons even though he speaks about looking into the records of the docket sheet.
As I mentioned in previous posts , I filed my complaint more than two weeks before its entry date on their docket sheet which happened on the same day I complained about that publicly here. Even their docket sheet shows that it was filed on 8/11/14 but not entered until 8/25/14 (doc 1). Who knows how long it could have taken had I stayed silent?

Then, despite that initial long holding time to the complaint, it took them more than ten additional days to issue the summons and only after the assigned judge referred the case to the magistrate judge for "General Pretrial" (doc 3). They then issued me those invalid , or at least very questionable, summons with a letter telling me that the magistrate judge may recommend the dismissal of my complaint if I do not serve the complaint or request an extension with the 120 day time frame (doc 4). They then ignored my request for new summons because of the invalidity of those they sent (doc 5 and doc 6) and even refused to enter it as a motion which is what it was filed as.

So even before the issuance of this dismissal recommendation it didn't need a genius to see what is going on. One can also see what clearly suggests an attempt to make those in higher positions participate in the plan without direct responsibility. That was started with the protection for the district judge through her referral to the magistrate judge for general pretrial (That reluctance to accept a responsibility here also fits with the relatively long time it took to assign a judge to the case even without counting the time between filing and entering the complaint). Despite that referral the magistrate judge or even the Clerk may not be seen in direct responsibility here because the game was being played through that vaguely identified unit I already talked here about doubting the purpose of its creation called the Pro SE Intake Unite . Then the second layer of that defense was shown with their entering as a letter the motion I sent regarding the invalidity of the summons (In addition an affidavit in support of the motion had to be sent and was received by them twice and I had to also complain publicly about the problem of not entering it before it was entered, as "Letter", in doc 6. Do you see how the general requirement on pro se litigants to contact only the Pro Se Intake Unite directly instead of the clerk was beneficial to the plan here?).

Even without recognizing that I don't see how an honest higher court would accept how the summons issue I raised was ignored without even denying the motion despite being on their docket sheet. That would still be the case even if I were to unknowingly miss the 14 days time frame to object to this recommendation and therefore to appeal and instead go directly to the higher court with a writ of mandamus.

Also, it is funny how the magistrate judge mentions dates showing more than a month of time difference between the filing of the complaint and the issuance of the summons or that the Clerk was directed by the court to issue the summons without explaining why that was needed here then pass on all that like there is nothing there.

Current Docket Sheet


[(Added 3/16/2015) I mistakenly referred to doc 6 and doc 8 which are the motion I sent regarding the summons and the affidavit I sent in support of that as doc 5 and doc 6 respectively]