Moneywell GRP LLC v. Titan Trucking LLC et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-00274-JLS-LGF
Document 14 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MONEYWELL GRP LLC, Plaintiff,
V.
TITAN TRUCKING LLC, STANDARD WASTE SERVICES, TESI INC., SENIOR TRUCKING LLC, TITAN ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, and JEFFREY JOHN RIZZO Defendants.
TE
STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
UN
JAN 2 0 2026
MARY C. LOEWENGUTH, CLERK WESTERN DISTRICT OF NY
25-CV-274 (JLS) (LGF)
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff commenced this action in New York State court on February 26, 2025, asserting claims based on an alleged breach of contract. See Dkt. 1-1 at 3-7. The case was removed to federal court on March 27, 2025. Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 10.
On March 28, 2025, "a request for verification of admission to this court" was sent to Plaintiff's attorney, Isaac Greenfield. Dkt. 13 at 2. On July 11, 2025, because Mr. Greenfield did not respond to this request, Magistrate Judge Foschio issued an order to show cause for why the case "should not be dismissed for lack of representation by an attorney admitted to this court." Dkt. 12. Mr. Greenfield never responded to this order, either. Dkt. 13 at 2.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

Case 1:25-cv-00274-JLS-LGF
Document 14 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 2
On December 5, 2025, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) addressing Plaintiff's lack of compliance with the court order. Dkt. 13. He recommends that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute the case. Id. at 6. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. See Dkt. 13 at 7 (specifying that objections were due fourteen days from receipt).
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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. § 636 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and, based on that review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Foschio's recommendation.
Thus, for the reasons in the R&R, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 20, 2026
Buffalo, New York
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2