DECISION and ORDER JURISDICTION On June 4, 2018, the parties to this action consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c) to proceed before the undersigned. (Dkt. 17). The matter is presently before the court on Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 42), filed February 12, 2021, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, to vacate the consent to proceed before the undersigned, to proceed pro se, and for an extension of time to file an appeal from the undersigned’s order filed October 21, 2020. BACKGROUND and FACTS1 Plaintiff David Dale (“Plaintiff”), commenced, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, this civil rights action on November 24, 2017, asserting against Defendants, including Erie County Sheriff Deputies Simon Biegasiewicz, Joseph Raczynski, and Warren Luick (together, “Defendants”), claims for relief originating with a traffic stop on March 5, 2015, including for unreasonable seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Defendants filed an answer on January 18, 2018 (Dkt. 8). On May 8, 2019, Defendants moved for summary judgment (Dkt. 27) (“summary judgment motion”). In a Decision and Order filed October 21, 2020 (Dkt. 37) (“October 21, 2020 D&O”), the undersigned granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed the action, with judgment entered in favor of Defendants on October 22, 2020 (Dkt. 38). On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff moved pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) to extend the time to file a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (Dkt. 39) (“motion to extend time”). In support of the motion, Plaintiff had argued that he first learned of the October 21, 2020 D&O during an October 28, 2020 conversation with his attorney, Matthew A. Albert, Esq. (“Albert”), and then spent several days with Albert researching the merits of an appeal to the Second Circuit before Albert advised he was unable to represent Plaintiff in the appeal, but that Albert’s associate, Griffin Davis Dault (“Dault”) may be willing to handle the appeal. On November 12, 2020, however, Albert advised Dault was not able to represent Plaintiff, and arranged for Plaintiff to pick up from Albert the case file which was not available until November 23, 2020, i.e., one day later than the 30-day deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal with the Second Circuit. On January 6, 2021, the undersigned denied the motion to extend time (Dkt. 41) (“January 6, 2021 D&O”). In denying the motion to extend time to file an appeal, the undersigned found without merit Plaintiff’s assertion that the motion was supported by “excusable neglect” based on Albert’s failure to advise Plaintiff of the deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit, which failure Albert attributed to personal circumstances including a fire at Albert’s home resulting in extensive damage and flooding and requiring Albert make repairs, the Coronavirus pandemic necessitating Albert’s mother quarantine in New York City, and Albert learning in late October 2020 that he would be taking an involuntary leave of absence and unable to practice law for several months. The undersigned further found the asserted circumstances established at most a “blunder” or “honest mistake” which did not substantiate “excusable neglect.” January 6, 2021 D&O at 6-7. On February 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion (Dkt. 42) (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), seeking an order removing Plaintiff’s attorneys of record and permitting Plaintiff to proceed pro se, rescinding the consent to proceed before the undersigned, extending the time for Plaintiff to file with the Second Circuit a notice of appeal either with regard to the October 21, 2020 D&O, or the January 6, 2021, and permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Attached to Plaintiff’s Motion is the Combined Motion Affirmation [of David Dale]2 to Remove Attorneys, Remove Matter from Magistrate [Judge], Extend Time to File a Notice of Appeal Per Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) or File Notice of Appeal, or Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. [Civ. P.] 60, and to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 42 at 2-7) (“Plaintiff’s Affirmation”), exhibits A and B (Dkt. 42 at 8-10 (“Plaintiff’s Exh. A”), and 11-19 (“Plaintiff’s Exh. B”), a Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 42 at 20-30) (“Plaintiff’s Memorandum”), and cases (Dkt. 42 at 31-35). Plaintiff also filed on February 12, 2021, a Notice of Appeal of the January 6, 2021 D&O to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Dkt. 43). On February 18, 2021, the Second Circuit issued a Notice (Dkt. 46) advising that Plaintiff’s appeal could not proceed while Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis remained pending in this court. On March 1, 2021, Defendants filed the Attorney Declaration [of First Assistant County Attorney Jeremy C. Toth] in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Extend Deadline to Appeal, and Relief from Judgment (Dkt. 47) (“Defendants’ Response”). On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed in further support of Plaintiff’s Motion the Reply Affirmation (Dkt. 48) (“Plaintiff’s Reply”). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary. Based on the following, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. DISCUSSION 1. Request to Vacate Consent to Proceed Before the Undersigned Initially, the court addresses Plaintiff’s request that the consent to proceed before a magistrate judge filed on June 4, 2018 (Dkt. 17), be vacated because such consent was given by Plaintiff’s former counsel, Matthew Albert (“Albert”), rather than by Plaintiff who does not consent and, as such, is invalid. Plaintiff’s Affirmation
