Moneywell Grp LLC v. Titan Trucking LLC, Standard Waste Services, TESI Inc., Senior Trucking LLC, Titan Environmental Solutions, and Jeffrey John Rizzo

No. 25-CV-274 (JLS) (LGF) · United States District Court for the Western District of New York · January 20, 2026 · No. 25-CV-274 (JLS) (LGF)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York adopts a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismisses the action for failure to prosecute. The dismissal followed plaintiff’s failure to respond to a request regarding counsel’s admission to the court and to an order to show cause.

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
Writing for the Court
John L. Sinatra, Jr.
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
Decision date
January 20, 2026
Docket number
25-CV-274 (JLS) (LGF)
Procedural posture
Plaintiff's state-court breach-of-contract action was removed to federal court. After plaintiff's attorney failed to respond to a request for verification of admission to the court and an order to show cause, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute. The district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action.
Standard of review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), de novo review is required for portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. When no objections are filed, neither the statute nor Rule 72 requires district-court review of the recommendation.
Precedential value
unpublished district court decision
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

civil procedurebreach of contractcommercial litigation

Practice areas

civil procedurecommercial litigationcontracts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court was required to review the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation when neither party filed objections.
  2. Whether the action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's requests and order to show cause.

Holdings

  1. When no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's recommendation, 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 do not require the district court to review the recommendation.
  2. The action was dismissed for failure to prosecute because plaintiff failed to respond to the court's request regarding counsel's admission and failed to respond to the order to show cause.

Key quotations

A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 686 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised.

Factual background

Moneywell commenced an action alleging breach of contract against Titan Trucking LLC and the other defendants. After removal, the court requested verification that plaintiff's attorney was admitted to practice before the court. Counsel did not respond to that request or to a subsequent order to show cause concerning the lack of representation by an attorney admitted to the court.

Procedural history

Plaintiff commenced the action in New York State court on February 26, 2025, and defendants removed it to federal court on March 27, 2025. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, who issued a request concerning plaintiff's counsel's admission, followed by an order to show cause when counsel did not respond. After counsel also failed to respond to the order to show cause, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute. No objections were filed, and the district court accepted and adopted the recommendation.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…