Ariana Smith v. Sandra Rivera-Llamas, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01547
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ARIANA SMITH, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 24-1547 (ADC) v.

SANDRA RIVERA-LLAMAS, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Background On November 27, 2024, plaintiff Ariana Smith (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Sandra Rivera-Llamas and Beaumedics LLC (“defendants”) claiming physical, emotional, and other damages from a non-invasive cosmetic procedure performed by defendants. ECF No. 1. By January 23, 2025, the defendants had answered the complaint and denied liability. ECF Nos. 10, 11. After several procedural developments, the case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte on July 1, 2025, for, among other things, a report and recommendation on any dispositive motion that may be filed. ECF No. 24. On September 3, 2025, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw from plaintiff’s legal representation due to an “irreconcilable impasse regarding the direction and management of this litigation.” ECF No. 30. The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on September 11, 2025, after which she granted the motion to withdraw and gave plaintiff sixty days to appear with new legal representation. ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34. The Magistrate Judge warned her, in unambiguous terms, that “[f]ailure to comply may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.” ECF No. 33. Plaintiff did not comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order, and on November 15, 2025, defendants jointly moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff

did not oppose. On December 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the Court grant the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 39. The same was ordered to be notified by mail to plaintiff’s mailing address. Id. It was

notified again on January 14, 2026. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff did not file any objection to the R&R. II. Legal Standard Absent objections, the Court is free to adopt a report and recommendation’s factual and

legal determinations. See M. v. Falmouth School Department, 847 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 2017) (“Absent objection ... a district court has a right to assume that the affected party agrees to the magistrate's recommendation.”) (cleaned up); see also Roy v. Hanks, No. 22-1302, 2023 WL 3166353, at *1 (1st Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) (“Only those issues fairly raised by… objections to the

magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court….”) (quoting Falmouth); United States v. Maldonado-Pena, 4 F.4th 1, 20 (1st Cir. 2021) (“[W]hen, as here, a party fails to file an objection to an R&R, the party has waived any [appellate] review of the district court's

decision.”) (citing United States v. Díaz-Rosado, 857 F.3d 89, 94 (1st Cir. 2017)). III. Discussion and Conclusion It is evident from the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and the record that plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and failed to diligently prosecute her claim. Despite being on notice that her failure to act risked the dismissal of her claims, plaintiff failed to act. Accordingly,

after having performed a review of the R&R and the record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s unobjected R&R at ECF No. 39 and GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF No. 36. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Clerk of Court is to enter judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED. At San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 3rd day of February 2026.

S/AIDA M. DELGADO-COLON United States District Judge