Thompson v. D4C Dental Brands Inc. - Employment Discrimination Dismissal

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Kayla Thompson v. D4C Dental Brands, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 0:25-cv-61167

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (54.9K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

SUONUITTEHDE RSNTA DTIESTS RDIICSTT ROIFC TFL COORUIDRTA
CASE NO. 25-CV-61167-CIV-DAMIAN/STRAUSS

KAYLA THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D4C DENTAL BRANDS, INC.,

Defendant.
_________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jared Strauss’s Report and
Recommendation to the District Judge (“Report”) [ECF No. 27], entered on March 12,
2026.
THE COURT has considered the Report, the pertinent portions of the record, and
relevant authorities and is otherwise fully advised.
Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination case on June 10, 2025. [ECF No. 1].
On January 26, 2026, Plaintiff’s attorney filed an Unopposed Motion to Withdraw. [ECF
No. 18]. The following day, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia Valle entered a paperless order
granting the motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to either retain
counsel (who would have to file a notice of appearance) or file a notice indicating that she
intended to proceed without counsel by February 10, 2026. [ECF No. 19]. After Plaintiff
failed to timely comply with the Magistrate Judge’s January 27, 2026 Order, on February
17, 2026, Magistrate Judge Strauss entered an order giving Plaintiff until February 24, 2026,
to comply with Judge Valle’s initial order. [ECF No. 24]. Both Judge Valle’s January 27
Order and Judge Strauss’s February 17 Order warned Plaintiff that “failure to comply may
result in a recommendation to the District Judge that the case be dismissed for lack of
prosecution.” [ECF No. 24 at 2]. Judge Valle and Judge Strauss also assured that their
orders were served on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff again failed to comply with Judge Strauss’s order, following which, on
February 27, 2026, Judge Strauss issued yet another order directing Plaintiff to “comply
with the Court’s prior order [DE 19] by (1) retaining new counsel (who must file a notice of
appearance) or (2) filing a notice that Plaintiff intends to proceed without counsel.” [ECF
No. 26]. The February 27 Order warned that failure to comply “[would] result in a
recommendation to [this Court] that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” Id. at 2.
The deadline to respond to the February 27 Order was March 9, 2026. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff

again failed to comply.
On March 12, 2026, Magistrate Judge Strauss issued the Report recommending that
this case be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders. [ECF
No. 27]. The Report advised Plaintiff that she had fourteen days from receipt of a copy of
the Report to file written objections. See id. at 4. To date, no objections have been filed and
the time to do so has passed.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts
must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely
objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face

of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of
review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de
novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to
require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de
novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the
“[flailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later
attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v.
Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to
assure herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In light of that review, the
undersigned agrees with Judge Strauss’s well-reasoned findings and thorough analyses and
conclusions and agrees with Judge Strauss’s recommendation that Plaintiff's Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 27] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all
purposes, including appellate review.
2. The Complaint is this case [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case, and all pending motions
are DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 3rd day of
April, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: Magistrate Judge Jared Strauss
Kayla Thompson, pro se
6754 Sienna Club Drive
Lauderhill, FL 33319