William Anastasio v. Titan Factory Direct

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM ANASTASIO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1336-G ) TITAN FACTORY DIRECT, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Plaintiff William Anastasio initiated this action on October 14, 2025, in state court, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, unjust enrichment, and fraud against Defendant Titan Factory Direct. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1-1). The case was removed to this Court on November 12, 2025. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and applicable rules, the Court now dismisses the action without prejudice. I. Background As of February 3, 2026, Plaintiff had not filed an entry of appearance in this case. See LCvR 83.4. The Court therefore ordered that, within fourteen days, either Plaintiff’s counsel must enter an appearance or Plaintiff must file a written notice indicating his intent to appear pro se in this case. See Order of Feb. 3, 2026 (Doc. No. 10). Plaintiff subsequently failed to file an entry of appearance or otherwise contact the Court. On June 4, 2026, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause no later than June 17, 2026, why this action should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s prior order. See Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 12). The order was mailed to Plaintiff at his state-court counsel’s address of record. As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed a response, requested an extension of time to do so, or otherwise been in contact with the Court regarding this action.

II. Discussion Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order,” the Court may dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Tenth Circuit “ha[s] consistently interpreted Rule 41(b) to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” Huggins v. Sup. Ct. of

U.S., 480 F. App’x 915, 916-17 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009). If the dismissal is without prejudice, the Court generally need not follow any “particular procedures” in entering the dismissal order. AdvantEdge Bus. Grp., 552 F.3d at 1236; see Robledo-Valdez v. Smelser, 593 F. App’x 771, 775 (10th Cir. 2014).

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and to comply with the Court’s orders leaves the Court unable “to achieve an orderly and expeditious” resolution of this action. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). CONCLUSION Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate judgment

shall be entered. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2026.

CHARLES B. GOODWIN United States District Judge