Motion to Rule?

It seems to me implausible that neither side has any recourse when a judge refuses to rule on outstanding pre-trial motions. Alan Feuer writes in his NYT report that even a motion to recuse is unlikely because such motions usually require judicial acts as their basis. Is not reasonless inaction action? Cannon has taken no action that has, even incrementally, moved the case toward a trial starting before the election. That is action, it is action by inaction, which is still action. It can't be that a judge is assigned a case and refuses to take any action and, e.g. lets the speedy trial period expire resulting in the defendant's discharge. Does not the government have the right to speedy trial in federal court? Both sides have said they can be ready for trial in the summer. Motion to Set Trial Date? Something. The law is not a ass. This isn't 18th century Chancery Court in England. A judge cannot just not act.