Jermila Walker v. Baptist Health System, Inc., d/b/a Baptist Medical Center

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00588
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

JERMILA WALKER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:25-cv-588-MMH-SJH

BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., d/b/a Baptist Medical Center,

Defendant. /

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22; Report), entered by the Honorable Samuel J. Horovitz, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 15, 2025. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Corrected Complaint for Damages and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 10) be granted in part and denied in part. See Report at 1, 32. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed. The Court “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). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to

factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also 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.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become

11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”). Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the

Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 32-33. 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Corrected Complaint for Damages and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Count [is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in part and limited to claims alleging disparate treatment based on Plaintiff's forced floating and her termination; Count II is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and Count III is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 7* day of January, 2026.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

ja Copies to: Counsel of Record

-3-