Kandra Amboh v. The Kroger Company

• Court: District Court, D. Utah
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00023
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

KANDRA AMBOH, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v.

THE KROGER COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00023-JNP-DAO

Defendant. Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish

Plaintiff Kandra Amboh, proceeding pro se, filed an employment discrimination complaint against Defendant, The Kroger Company. After Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, Magistrate Judge Oberg recommended dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with the federal rules and one of Judge Oberg’s prior orders. For the following reasons, the court ADOPTS her Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES the action with prejudice. BACKGROUND On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed her original complaint against Defendant. ECF No. 1. The court then entered a scheduling order in which certain discovery deadlines were set. ECF No. 23. After Plaintiff repeatedly failed to abide by the scheduling order, Defendant moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute or comply with the federal rules. ECF No. 49. On November 19, 2025, the court granted two other motions filed by Defendant—a motion to compel and a motion for deposition-related fees. See ECF No. 53. In that order, the court set a deadline for Plaintiff to provide her initial disclosures and to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests by December 19, 2025. The court warned Plaintiff that if she did not comply, the case may be dismissed. That same day, the court recommended denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 54. On December 23, 2025, Defendant filed another motion to dismiss, based on Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with the court’s November 19 Order. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. On January 20, 2026, Judge Oberg recommended that dismissal was warranted based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the federal rules governing discovery and the court’s November 19 Order. ECF No. 64. She also recommended that two cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings be dismissed as moot. See ECF Nos. 40, 41. DISCUSSION Because Plaintiff did not object to the January 20, 2026 Report and Recommendation, she has waived any argument challenging its recommendations. Paciorek v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 2:23-cv-00904, 2024 WL 2818881, at *1 (D. Utah June 3, 2024); Thompson v. Sirmons, 336 F. App’x 834, 836 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“When a plaintiff

does not make specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report, he is considered to have waived those objections.”). And nothing indicates that the interests of justice demand excusing waiver here. See Paciorek, No. 2:23-cv-00904, 2024 WL 2818881, at *1. Nevertheless, even if the court reviewed for clear error, the court concludes that Judge Oberg’s analysis is not clearly erroneous. See Zloza v. Indus. Co., No. 4:23-cv-17, 2023 WL 2760784, at *1 (D. Utah Apr. 3, 2023). CONCLUSION AND ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the January 20, 206 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ECF Nos. 62, 64. Further, the court DENIES the two motions for judgment on the pleadings as moot. ECF 2 Nos. 40, 41. Finally, the court DENIES as moot the November 19, 2025 Report and Recommendation and the earlier motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 49, 54.

Signed March 13, 2026. BY THE COURT

Jill N. Parrish United States Chief District Judge