Ali Nicole Plett v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Opinion

In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas _____________

Case No. 25-cv-01047-TC-BGS _____________

ALI NICOLE PLETT,

Plaintiff

v.

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.,

Defendant _____________

ORDER

Ali Nicole Plett sued Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. Doc. 1. After her counsel was allowed to withdraw and a telephone status conference was sched- uled to address discovery and case management issues, Plett, who ap- pears to be proceeding pro se, failed to appear for the telephone status conference. Doc. 24. Magistrate Judge Severson then ordered Plett to show cause why her claims against Securitas Security Services should not be dismissed for failure to participate or prosecute. Doc. 25. Plett made no response to that order. See Doc. 26 (reflecting that orders were unable to be delivered to the address provided by Plett’s with- drawing counsel); Doc. 28 (same). Judge Severson now recommends that Plett’s claims against Securitas Security Services be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Doc. 27. When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a dispositive pretrial matter, a party objecting to the recommendation must “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed find- ings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district judge must then determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The dis- trict judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instruc- tions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This means that objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition must be “both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court . . . .” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). To be timely, the objection must be made within 14 days after service of a copy of the recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections are sufficiently specific if they “fo- cus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060. Where a party fails to make a proper objection, a district court may review the rec- ommendation under any standard it deems appropriate, even for clear error. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted); Gilbert v. United States Olympic Comm., 423 F. Supp. 3d 1112, 1125 (D. Colo. 2019). Plett has not filed a timely objection. After reviewing Judge Sev- erson’s Report and Recommendation, there appears no clear error. Ac- cordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 27, is adopted in full and Plett’s claims are DISMISSED. It is so ordered. Date: November 4, 2025 s/ Toby Crouse Toby Crouse United States District Judge