Dezha Rolle v. Florida Care ALF of Vero Beach, Inc. d/b/a Spring Hills Assisted Living Facility

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 26-14052-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

DEZHA ROLLE,

Plaintiff, v.

FLORIDA CARE ALF OF VERO BEACH, INC. d/b/a SPRING HILLS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY,

Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on July 14, 2026 [ECF No. 27]. The Report recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 20] be granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend. Both parties filed a Notice of Non-Objection [ECF Nos. 28, 29]. Upon review of the Report and the Motion, the Report [ECF No. 27] is ACCEPTED; the Motion [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons stated in the Report; and Plaintiff is given one final opportunity to amend her claims as indicated below, in accordance with the rationale in the Report and applicable law. *** To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the

record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. *** Following review, the Court finds no clear error in the well-reasoned Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 27] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons stated in the Report. a. Defendant’s 12(b)(1) Motion is DENIED, but any subsequent pleading should include allegations plausibly establishing that Defendant is a covered employer under Title VII and, by extension the PWFA. Defendant

may re-raise its challenge on this issue on summary judgment if appropriate. b. Defendant’s 12(b)(6) Motion is DENIED as to Count I. c. Defendant’s 12(b)(6) is GRANTED as to Counts II, III, and IV for the reasons stated in the Report. d. Counts II, III, and IV are therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with one final opportunity to replead as indicated below. 3. Any amended pleading is due no later than August 11, 2026, and must take into account all of the reasoning in the Report and applicable caselaw [ECF No. 27]. If CASE NO. 26-14052-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

filed, the amended complaint shall be the sole, operative pleading considered in this case and must stand on its own, without reference to any previous pleading. 4. Failure to file a timely amended pleading will result in an Order directing Defendant to file an Answer to Count I only [ECF No. 1]. ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 24th day of July 2026.

Le M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record