Thompson v. D4C Dental Brands, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-CV-61167-DAMIAN/Strauss
KAYLA THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
D4C DENTAL BRANDS, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 31]
AND DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES [ECF NO. 29]
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report
and Recommendation, entered on June 16, 2026 [ECF No. 31 (the “Report”)].
THE COURT has reviewed the Report and the pertinent portions of the record and
is otherwise fully advised.
Plaintiff, Kayla Thompson, initiated this action on June 10, 2025, by filing a
Complaint asserting claims for employment discrimination against Defendant, D4C Dental
Brands, Inc. (“Defendant” or “D4C”). [ECF No. 1]. On April 3, 2026, this Court adopted
Magistrate Judge Strauss’s recommendation [ECF No. 27] that the case be dismissed based
on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court orders. [ECF No. 28].
On June 1, 2026, D4C filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. [ECF No. 29].
Plaintiff did not file a response. The undersigned referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge
Strauss [ECF No. 30], and on June 16, 2026, Judge Strauss issued the Report
recommending that the Motion be denied on the grounds that D4C has not shown or even
argued that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. [ECF
No. 31]. No party filed objections to the Report, and the deadline for doing so has passed.
Case 0:25-cv-61167-MD Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts
must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely
objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of
review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de
novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See
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.”).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to
assure herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. Having reviewed the
Report and the Magistrate Judge’s reasons in support of the recommendation, this Court
agrees and finds no error. Accordingly, for the reasons laid out by the Magistrate Judge in
the Reports, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 31] is AFFIRMED
AND ADOPTED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 29] is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida, this 10th
day of August, 2026.
_________________________________
MELISSA DAMIAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cc: Counsel of Record
Kayla Thompson, pro se
Case 0:25-cv-61167-MD Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2026 Page 2 of 2