Plett v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

1
In the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas
_____________
Case No. 25-cv-01047-TC-BGS
_____________
ALI NICOLE PLETT,
Plaintiff
v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.,
Defendant
_____________
ORDER
Ali Nicole Plett sued Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., alleging
employment discrimination and retaliation. Doc. 1. After her counsel
was allowed to withdraw and a telephone status conference was sched-
uled to address discovery and case management issues, Plett, who ap-
pears to be proceeding pro se, failed to appear for the telephone status
conference. Doc. 24. Magistrate Judge Severson then ordered Plett to
show cause why her claims against Securitas Security Services should
not be dismissed for failure to participate or prosecute. Doc. 25. Plett
made no response to that order. See Doc. 26 (reflecting that orders
were unable to be delivered to the address provided by Plett’s with-
drawing counsel); Doc. 28 (same). Judge Severson now recommends
that Plett’s claims against Securitas Security Services be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. Doc. 27.
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on
a dispositive pretrial matter, a party objecting to the recommendation
must “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed find-
ings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district judge
must then
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The dis-
trict judge may accept, reject, or modify the
Case 6:25-cv-01047-TC-BGS Document 30 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 2

2
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instruc-
tions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This means
that objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition must
be “both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review
by the district court . . . .” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d
1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). To be timely, the objection must be made
within 14 days after service of a copy of the recommended disposition.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections are sufficiently specific if they “fo-
cus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are
truly in dispute.” One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060. Where a party
fails to make a proper objection, a district court may review the rec-
ommendation under any standard it deems appropriate, even for clear
error. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations
omitted); Gilbert v. United States Olympic Comm., 423 F. Supp. 3d 1112,
1125 (D. Colo. 2019).
Plett has not filed a timely objection. After reviewing Judge Sev-
erson’s Report and Recommendation, there appears no clear error. Ac-
cordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 27, is adopted in
full and Plett’s claims are DISMISSED.
It is so ordered.
Date: November 4, 2025 s/ Toby Crouse
Toby Crouse
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-01047-TC-BGS Document 30 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2