MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDERI. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff James Russell, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that Defendants Eric Terraferma and Jason Meyer, New York State Police Troopers, subjected him to an allegedly unreasonable search and seizure during a traffic stop, in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments rights. (Dkt. No. 1). On February 12, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). (Dkt. No. 35). For the reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORYPlaintiff, represented by counsel, filed the Complaint on April 22, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1). On July 8, 2016, Defendants filed an Answer (Dkt. No. 7) and on July 27, 2016, the Court entered a Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. (Dkt. No. 10). On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a letter stating that he would no longer be representing Plaintiff, that he had advised Plaintiff to locate new counsel, and that he would file a motion to withdraw as counsel. (Dkt. No. 15, at 1). United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart stayed all deadlines “pending the resolution of Mr. Russell’s representation.” (Dkt. No. 16).On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. (Dkt. No. 23). On June 1, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stewart held an in-person hearing on the motion, which Plaintiff attended, granted the motion to withdraw, stayed the case for 60 days, and directed Plaintiff “to advise the Court as to the status of retaining new counsel within 30 days.” (Dkt. Nos. 24, 26).On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that he was having difficulty finding new counsel and requesting more time. (Dkt. No. 28). On September 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Text Order directing that Plaintiff and defense counsel appear for an in-person conference on September 27, 2017. (Dkt. No. 29).Plaintiff failed to appear for the September 27, 2017 in-person conference.1 (Dkt. No. 30). After hearing from defense counsel, Magistrate Judge Stewart lifted the stay and issued an amended scheduling order directing the parties to complete discovery by November 30, 2017, and file any dispositive motions by December 29, 2017. (Id.). Additionally, Magistrate Judge Stewart “deemed [Plaintiff] Pro Se for the remainder of th[e] action,”2 but noted that he was “not precluded from obtaining counsel at any time,” and asked defense counsel to attempt to contact Plaintiff. (Id.; Text Minute Entry September 27, 2017).On October 23, 2017, Defendants served paper discovery demands on Plaintiff along with a notice scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition for November 28, 2017. (Dkt. No. 35-1,6). Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ paper discovery demands and “could not be reached by phone to…confirm that he intended to appear for deposition.” (Id.7).Plaintiff did not appear for his November 28, 2017 deposition. (Id.8). Defense counsel “sought to contact Plaintiff via…telephone…[but] was unable…to reach the Plaintiff directly, or…leave a voicemail.” (Id.). Sometime later, Plaintiff contacted defense counsel and asked if a new date could be set for deposition. (Id.).In a letter dated November 30, 2017, defense counsel advised the Court of Plaintiff’s telephone call and indicated that the parties discussed discovery and scheduled Plaintiff’s deposition for January 10, 2018. (Dkt. No. 33, at 1). Defense counsel accordingly requested that the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines be extended. (Id.). Magistrate Judge Stewart granted the request and extended the discovery deadline to January 12, 2018 and the dispositive motion deadline to February 11, 2018. (Dkt. No. 34).Defendants re-mailed their paper discovery demands to Plaintiff along with a new notice of deposition, specifying a deposition date of January 10, 2018. (Dkt. No. 35-1,12). Plaintiff failed to appear for deposition and, according to defense counsel, “[w]hen contacted by phone after failing to appear, the Plaintiff stated in sum and substance that he had believed his deposition date to have been January 5, and that he had assumed his deposition to have been called off due to inclement weather on that date.” (Id.14).The parties re-scheduled Plaintiff’s deposition for January 12, 2018. (Id.15). Defense counsel sent Plaintiff an overnight letter “advising him of the deposition date, time and place; again reminding him of his repeated failure to respond to written discovery, and requesting that he bring completed written discovery to his January 12 deposition.” (Id.; Dkt. No. 35-1, at 25). Plaintiff did not appear for the January 12, 2018 deposition. (Id.16). Defense counsel’s “[a]ttempts to contact him at the time of his deposition proved fruitless, and a voicemail left at the number which had previously been used to communicate with him, went unanswered.” (Id.)On February 12, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, or, alternatively, to dismiss for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 35). Defense counsel states that he has not “heard from the Plaintiff concerning this case since our January 10, 2018 phone call during which he pledged to appear for a January 12 deposition” and that Defendants have never received any written discovery from Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 35-1,
