court's law of the case specifically on the initial motion to dismiss which granted the pro se plaintive appellate here a six month window to number one shore up his complaint and make more substantial allegations as to his claim of disparate impact also to give more in terms of his retaliation claim and as well to to be able to respond to the the defense's arguments that there was a business necessity for the alleged disparate impact as well as  bonafide seniority system set in place that would alleviate the board of education the defense from liability he was denied that six month window by a host  well initially by a sum total didn't move before extension of time he did indeed in december of two thousand and sixteen and the court on that in that order in december twenty eighth two thousand and sixteen specifically told him that if you need more time plaintive you must ask the court and i will under the under rule request additional time he did request additional time and he was granted it until january thirtieth of the next year two thousand and seventeen and in that order he he said motion for summary judgment outright or allow discovery and indeed while not specifically stated in an affidavit declaration as is required by the rule this process a plaintive said on page one ninety six of the of the record that he had to quote no it's has no disposition and what it was taken to mean is deposition transcripts or discovery and i was on page one ninety six so he did really tell the judge in the court below that he needed more time to at least respond to the motion for summary judgment part of the error with respect to that court was to to consider the motion for s judgment having made the law of the case previously that these were these sophisticated legal issues of business necessity and bonafide seniority systems were fact laden fact dependent issues that a pro se litigant should at least have this six month window whether or not he would have been able to prevail or would have created a question of fact within that tight timeline is not before the court he the legal theories have not been problems in the first place mr moseby was given a period of time in which to file a complaint as a matter of fact he did file a complaint an amended complaint he filed what was referred to as the amended retaliation complain and that was stricken by the court on my motion it found that not only was it not responsive to the invitation to amend his complaint to state a claim of disparate treatment but that it was stricken because it made no semblance of what a complaint should be underneath the rules and that it was said it was quote unquote unfair to require us to have to respond to it i think your honor the main point here is your honors the main point here is that there was a finding of a bona fide seniority system and this is clear in this case and a bona fide seniority system is one in which it's equally applied in facially neutral in this particular case i won't bore you with the details but you're aware that across the nation after the great recession all unions and municipalities and agencies and employers were renegotiating contracts with their had different tiers of benefits and wages and benefits there would be a trade off where the employees would get maybe a higher wage and in research and return the employers would have them do a medical ok and that was going to be from that moment on so it's clear that this is a bona fide seniority system but more importantly in the plant in the appellant's brief he doesn't address that and so therefore need that law that he has waived any claim to do it he to fight our bona fide security system claim so number one is i would say that the judge did find as an alternate theory that there was a bonafide seniority system and having found that the plane the appellant has waived his argument against that because he didn't address it in the brief second of all even if you did address it it's clear that underneath the case law as i've cited in my brief there was a bonafide security system the next aspect was the retaliation claim the court specifically found in that there was no evidence whatsoever on the motion for summary judgment of any retaliation three tell you claim the essence of which was mr most be alleged that in a local blogger that information that he found a personal nature was released that information was his salary and his home address but even mr moseby submitted evidence from the blogger in which she specifically said i get this from an open source as a lawyer the city of new york myself i know that my salary on an annual basis is published so you can't claim that that's something that's personal in nature and also the filings that mr mims be made through the c h row etc had his home address on it so there was a specific finding in the motion for summary judgment that there was and also mr most be never showed that the city of new york was the one that may have released that information and in fact the evidence he submitted showed that it was came from the block or the last would be the disparate treatment and the motion to dismiss it was specifically found that there was no factual allegations and beyond mere conclusions that would show that there was any discriminatory treatment of him individually this was his brief argues that he was removed from his job as a custodian at a high school where he had been in that position fifteen years for retaliatory reasons now why is to raise for the first time this on a motion for summary judgment if there's no further questions thank you for your time operative complaint that was the one that if he doesn't cert this claim in the original complaint he does he says retaliation it was a formal complaint of discrimination and he says retaliation does he go through specific he certainly includes retaliation does he specify that there was retaliation in that he was removed from his position as head coach still into the say that absolutely not no he does not that came up in the briefing that he made a brief in here also his purported retaliation complaint as well but again he should have had the opportunity as we said before as to some fact discovery as to those very sophisticated legal issues of bonafide