Desert Fox Custom Restorations, Inc. v. CWS Marketing Group et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims asserted against Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS MOREOVER ORDERED that the District Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (A certified copy to be mailed by Certified Mail to Vincent Tangredi.)(em)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
DESERT FOX CUSTOM
RESTORATIONS, INC., a New Mexico
Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CWS MARKETING GROUP, a Virginia
Corporation; THE ACCURATE GROUP
OF TEXAS, a Texas LLC; and WESTCOR
LAND & TITLE INC., a Florida Licensed
Insurance Co.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

EP-20-CV-00080-DCG

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Leon Schydlower’s “Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to Dismiss This Lawsuit for Want of Prosecution”
(ECF No. 47). In December 2019, Plaintiff Desert Fox Custom Restorations, Inc. brought this
lawsuit against Defendants CWS Marketing Group, The Accurate Group of Texas, and Westcor
Land Title Insurance Company, incorrectly named as Westcor Land & Title Inc.,1 in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico. In March 2020, pursuant to the parties’
stipulation, the case was transferred to this Court.
Judge Schydlower recommends that this lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for want
of prosecution by Plaintiff. R&R at 2, ECF No. 47. Further, at the conclusion of his Report and
Recommendation, the magistrate judge reminded the parties that they “ha[d] fourteen days from
service of this report and recommendation to file written objections.” Id. (capitalization
omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The time for filing such
1

Westor’s Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. at 1, ECF No. 13.

objections has passed, but no party filed any objection. See ECF No. 49.
When a party files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). As to the unobjected-to portions of the
magistrate judge’s report or when a party does not file written objections, the district judge
applies a “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United
States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a
magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither
party objects to those findings.”). Having carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation,
the Court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation are
not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leon Schydlower’s “Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to Dismiss This Lawsuit for Want of Prosecution”
(ECF No. 47) is ACCEPTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims asserted against Defendants in
the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS MOREOVER ORDERED that the District Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case and
MAIL a copy of this Memorandum Order to Plaintiff Desert Fox Custom Restorations, Inc’s
owner Vincent Tangredi at 103 Metz Dr. #B, Ruidoso, New Mexico, 88345.

-2-

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of June 2020.

____________________________________
DAVID C. GUADERRAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-