Bradley v. Amazon

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CALEB BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF
AMAZON,
Defendant.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC’s
(“Amazon”) motion for summary judgment, filed January 22, 2026. Doc. 74. Mr. Bradley
responded to the motion, Doc. 75, and Amazon filed a reply, Doc. 76. The Honorable Sarah
Davenport referred this case to me “to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary
hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate
disposition of the case.” Doc. 47. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and the applicable
law, I recommend that the Court GRANT Amazon’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 74) for
the reasons discussed below.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(a). The parties must support their assertions about the existence or non-existence of
undisputed material facts with citations to the record or by demonstrating that the opposing party
“cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). “A fact is
material if, under the governing law, it could have an effect on the outcome of the lawsuit. A
dispute over a material fact is genuine if a rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 14

2
party on the evidence presented.” Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 952 F.3d 1182, 1189 (10th Cir. 2020).
When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Adair v. City of Muskogee, 823 F.3d 1297, 1304 (10th
Cir. 2016).
DISCUSSION
I. Undisputed Material Facts
Amazon provided a statement of undisputed material facts. Doc. 74 at 2–10. Mr. Bradley
purports to dispute some of these facts, Doc. 75 at 2–7, but he does not cite to evidence in
support of his own assertions of fact (with limited exceptions, including Exhibits 1 and 2, which
I will discuss below). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) makes clear that a party “must
support” its assertions or disputes of material fact with citations to record materials or allegations
that the opposing party’s cited materials are inadequate. The Court informed Mr. Bradley of his
obligation to become familiar with and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 5
at 1–2. Therefore, his failure to support many of his disputed facts with record evidence means
that these disputes are not “genuine” disputes of material fact because he has not pointed to
evidence that a reasonable jury could use to find in his favor.
Accordingly, the undisputed material facts in this case are as follows. Amazon hired Mr.
Bradley, a Black man, on October 4, 2021, as a Fulfillment Associate. Undisputed Material Fact
(“UMF”) No. 1.1 Mr. Bradley received and acknowledged onboarding documents including those
prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace and instructing
employees on how to report this conduct. UMF Nos. 2–3. These documents also included
1 The Undisputed Material Facts appear at pages 2 through 10 of Amazon’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 74).
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 14

3
standards of conduct and examples of infractions that could result in corrective action, “up to and
including termination.” UMF No. 4. Such infractions include fighting in the workplace, sexual
harassment, violation of security policies, and abusive and vulgar language. UMF Nos. 5–8. Mr.
Bradley also acknowledged Amazon’s policies prohibiting the use of other associates’ badges to
enter access-controlled areas. UMF No. 9.
In 2022, Mr. Bradley became a learning ambassador, “with additional duties of training
new associates, in addition to his regular associate duties.” UMF No. 10. He “didn’t really
consider it much of a promotion even though it technically is” because it did not come with a pay
raise. Doc. 74-10 at 5; UMF No. 11.
On May 11, 2022, Mr. Bradley “requested time off work for an injury to his shoulder,
which he claimed had occurred in March.” UMF No. 12. His doctor recommended that he take
off from work until May 18, 2022, and Amazon granted Mr. Bradley a medical leave of absence
through this period. UMF Nos. 13–14. Mr. Bradley, however, did not return until June 2, 2022,
because he disagreed with the doctor’s assessment. UMF No. 15. He testified that in
communications with the Employee Relations and worker’s compensation team, he felt that he
was treated like he was incompetent and a liar. UMF Nos. 16–17.2 Mr. Bradley testified that
around the same time, Amazon Security followed him “to see what he put in the trash,” but he
did not know if this action related to his race. UMF No. 19. He also testified that another
associate, Juan, asked him, “What would you do if I called you the n word?,” but Juan did not
2 UMF Nos. 16–17 also include statements by Mr. Bradley regarding his lack of evidence that
this unsatisfactory treatment had anything to do with his race. However, Mr. Bradley attaches his
Exhibit 1, Doc. 75 at 10–13, as evidence that his personnel file included a photograph of him that
the teams at Amazon could have seen, which would make them aware that he is Black. I
therefore recommend considering the issue of whether Amazon employees on the Employee
Relations and worker’s compensation teams knew Mr. Bradley was Black to be in genuine
dispute.
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 14

4
actually use any slur. UMF No. 20. He also “heard an associate from Germany telling another
associate that in Germany, it was acceptable to use the n-word to identify people.” UMF No. 21
(internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Bradley did not report any of these incidents to anyone.
UMF No. 22.
On January 13, 2023, Mr. Bradley entered an area of Amazon’s facility for which he did
not have permission; someone else used their badge to let him in. UMF No. 26–27. Amazon
issued Mr. Bradley a written warning about this incident. UMF No. 28; Doc. 74-8 at 2.
On February 24, 2023, Mr. Bradley had an argument with a coworker in the breakroom
regarding the volume of the television. UMF Nos. 30–33. The other employee said something
that Mr. Bradley could not hear completely but which included the words “a Black man.” UMF
No. 34; Doc. 74-11 at 2. Mr. Bradley referred to the other employee as a “motherfucker.” UMF
No. 35; Doc. 74-11 at 2. Amazon’s Human Resources department investigated the incident and
“substantiated both Plaintiff ‘cussing’ and [the other employee] making ‘derogatory racial
remarks.’” UMF No. 36; Doc. 74-11 at 3. Both parties were issued final written warnings for
their parts in the argument. UMF Nos. 38–39; Doc. 74-12 at 2; Doc. 74-11 at 3. Because of this
write-up, Mr. Bradley was removed as a learning ambassador. UMF No. 41.
In August 2023, Mr. Bradley was reported twice to Human Resources, by two different
female employees, for sexual harassment. UMF Nos. 42–44. Upon investigation, one report
resulted in a violation and the other did not. UMF Nos. 43, 48–49. Mr. Bradley received a second
final written warning for “harassing behavior.” UMF No. 50. Meanwhile, Mr. Bradley was
disciplined three times in September and October 2023 for failing to meet productivity
expectations. UMF Nos. 51–57. On October 18, 2023, Mr. Bradley was fired. UMF No. 58; Doc.
74-19 at 2.
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 4 of 14

5
Mr. Bradley filed the present case asserting fraud, negligence, retaliation in violation of
Title VII, discrimination in violation of Title VII, a hostile work environment, and wrongful
termination. Doc. 1 at 7. The Court granted Amazon’s motion for judgment on the pleadings,
ruling in Amazon’s favor on the fraud and negligence counts. Docs. 79, 82.
II. Analysis
A. Retaliation (Count III)
Mr. Bradley claims that he faced retaliation in violation of Title VII because he was
demoted and because he was moved “to areas where, [sic] duties, workloads, and safety
conditions changed.” Doc. 1 at 7. He allegedly reported “fraud” to Amazon’s human resources
department and faced a demotion, a write-up, and another transfer with minimal training. Id. at
12. As an initial matter, the Court notes that reporting “fraud” is not sufficient to establish
retaliation under Title VII; Title VII retaliation claims can only exist when an employee faces
retaliation for engaging in “protected opposition to discrimination.” Fassbender v. Correct Care
Sol’ns, 890 F.3d 875, 890 (10th Cir. 2018). Even if Mr. Bradley engaged in protected opposition
to discrimination—a matter he has not alleged sufficiently—his claim still cannot succeed for the
reasons discussed below.
To analyze a Title VII discrimination claim, the Court applies the burden-shifting
framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 782, 802–04
(1973). Fassbender, 890 F.3d at 890. First, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating a
prima facie case of retaliation. Id. For the purposes of this motion only, Amazon assumes that
Mr. Bradley can do so. Doc. 74 at 16. Next, the burden shifts to the employer “to articulate a
legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its actions.” Walkingstick Dixon v. Okla. ex rel. Regional
Univ. Sys. of Okla. Bd. of Regents, 125 F.4th 1321, 1334, 1339–40 (10th Cir. 2025). Here,
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 5 of 14

6
Amazon has articulated legitimate and non-retaliatory reasons for its discipline and ultimate
termination of Mr. Bradley: violations of company policy in the form of using profanity against a
coworker, sexual harassment, entering an area his badge did not permit him to enter, and
repeated instances of low productivity. Doc. 74 at 17.
Because Amazon has articulated these reasons, the burden shifts back to Mr. Bradley to
demonstrate that those reasons were pretextual. Walkingstick Dixon, 125 F.4th at 1334, 1339–40.
Mr. Bradley argues that 1) he received permission from his team lead and assistant manager to
enter the area his badge did not permit him to go, Doc. 75 at 2; 2) that in the investigation of the
fighting allegations, the other employee’s claims were investigated while Mr. Bradley’s were
ignored, id. at 4; 3) that Amazon “[c]onceal[ed] statements, write ups, [and] logs, and show[ed] a
bias” in firing him, id. at 5; and 4) that the sexual harassment investigation minimized and
ignored “how horseplay, slurs, and others[’] actions . . . provoked him,” id.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Mr. Bradley does not dispute that he did not
meet productivity expectations, that Amazon automatically issues discipline to associates in the
bottom five percent of productivity, and that he received three productivity write-ups between
September 7, 2023, and October 13, 2023. See UMF Nos. 51–53, 57; Doc. 75 at 5 (objecting to
UMF Nos. 50, 55, and 58, not 51–53 or 57). He has provided no evidence at all regarding any
concealed statements, write-ups, or logs pertaining to his productivity issues. He has admitted
that the productivity write-ups were automatic. UMF No. 52. Thus, his claim that these write-ups
were retaliatory, Doc. 75 at 6, falls flat because they were issued without discretion to any
employee whose productivity was in the bottom five percent.
Further, Mr. Bradley’s arguments in favor of pretext are insufficient to carry his burden.
Regarding his badge usage, the evidence shows that Mr. Bradley received a first written warning
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 6 of 14

7
for entering “the TOM yard” without correct permissions. Doc. 74-8 at 2. This warning took
place in January 2023. Mr. Bradley did not report his allegations of being discriminated against
until February and September 2023. UMF Nos. 40, 54. This incident therefore could not have
occurred in retaliation for Mr. Bradley’s allegations of discrimination.3
Mr. Bradley’s argument about the fighting allegations is insufficient. He argues that the
other employee’s claims were investigated and Mr. Bradley’s were ignored, but the evidence
demonstrates that this is not true: both Mr. Bradley and the other employee received final written
warnings, and the other employee was specifically disciplined for making derogatory racial
remarks. Doc. 74-11 at 2–3. Mr. Bradley has provided no evidence that his claims were ignored
while the other employee’s claims were investigated.
With regard to the sexual harassment allegations, Mr. Bradley’s characterization of the
record is unsupported. In fact, of the two sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Bradley, one
was specifically found unsubstantiated in part because “evidence indicated [that flirtatious
behavior by Mr. Bradley] was welcomed and consensual for an undefined period of time.” Doc.
74-20 at 3. Mr. Bradley provided screenshots of text messages to the investigator demonstrating
that the claimant had expressed consensual romantic interest in Mr. Bradley and given
permission for him to kiss her. Id. The second investigation, which involved a different claimant
and was substantiated, was investigated by the same HR investigator, Jen Gnecco, during
approximately the same period of time as the first one. Doc. 74-20 at 5 (Jen Gnecco investigated
during early September 2023 and found claim unsubstantiated); Doc. 74-13 at 7–8 (Jen Gnecco
3 Mr. Bradley refers to “retaliation after the workers comp complaints.” Doc. 75 at 6. He has
provided no evidence that he filed complaints of racial discrimination that occurred in the
worker’s compensation application process. Retaliation under Title VII refers to retaliation
against an employee who opposes violations of Title VII. Walkingstick Dixon, 125 F.4th at 1339.
It is not a catch-all cause of action for whistleblower allegations unrelated to Title VII violations.
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 7 of 14

8
investigated during early September 2023 and found claim substantiated). Mr. Bradley has put
forth no evidence showing how one investigation was unbiased but the second, concurrent
investigation by the same investigator was biased against him.
In short, Mr. Bradley has not demonstrated pretext. He therefore fails to meet his burden
under the McDonnell Douglas framework. I recommend GRANTING Amazon’s motion for
summary judgment on his retaliation claims.
B. Discrimination (Count IV)
Mr. Bradley claims that he faced discrimination in violation of Title VII. Doc. 1 at 14. He
argues that he received “harsh punishments, demotions, and reassignments” that others did not
suffer, citing the example of a “white employee” who told Mr. Bradley that he “got into an
altercation with another employee similar to my situation” but got a “paid suspension” and was
not “demoted or moved after,” unlike Mr. Bradley. Id. He also discusses an instance in which “a
Latina employee . . . tried to report white employees breaking company policies” and was
ultimately fired. Id. Finally, he states that the sexual harassment investigation he faced was based
on accusations from white employees and that he “didn’t get a proper investigation.” Id.
To analyze a Title VII discrimination claim, the Court applies a burden-shifting
framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 782, 802–04
(1973). Under this framework, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of demonstrating a prima
facie case of discrimination. Rivera v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 365 F.3d 912, 920 (10th Cir.
2004). If the plaintiff succeeds, the burden shifts to the defendant to “articulate some legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason” it took the action it did. Id. If the defendant carries this burden, the
burden shifts one last time to the plaintiff “to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 8 of 14

9
legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for
discrimination.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
Mr. Bradley first bears the burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination.
If he does not, the analysis ends. Many variations of this test exist to account for different
circumstances, but generally speaking, a prima facie case of discrimination requires 1) that the
plaintiff is a member of a protected class; 2) that the plaintiff was qualified and satisfactorily
performing his job; and 3) that he was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference
of discrimination.” Barlow v. C.R. England, Inc., 703 F.3d 497, 505 (10th Cir. 2012). Here, Mr.
Bradley is a member of a protected class because he is a Black man. UMF No. 1. However, he
fails to satisfy the second prong of the test: that he was qualified and satisfactorily performing his
job. The undisputed material facts demonstrate that in many respects, Mr. Bradley did not
perform his job in a satisfactory manner. He received an allegation of sexual harassment that was
substantiated, UMF No. 49–50; he got into an argument on the job with a fellow employee in
which he used profanity in violation of company policy, UMF No. 38; and his productivity was
repeatedly low enough to prompt automatic disciplinary action, UMF Nos. 51–53, 57. Therefore,
there is no need to proceed with the McDonnell Douglas test because Mr. Bradley has not
demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination.
In his complaint, Mr. Bradley compares the discipline and write-ups he faced to conduct
that he has heard about happening to white employees. Doc. 1 at 14. Disparate treatment based
on race requires Mr. Bradley to show “(1) that he is a member of a racial minority, (2) that he
suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that similarly situated employees were treated
differently.” Trujillo v. Univ. of Colo. Health Scis. Ctr., 157 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 1998).
Here, Mr. Bradley has alleged that a similarly situated white employee was treated differently,
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 9 of 14

10
Doc. 1 at 14, but he has brought no evidence in support of this allegation. At the summary
judgment stage, this is insufficient. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court grant summary judgment in Amazon’s favor on
Mr. Bradley’s discrimination claim.
C. Hostile Work Environment (Count V)
Mr. Bradley alleges that he experienced a hostile work environment. Doc. 1 at 15.
Analysis of a hostile work environment claim considers whether Mr. Bradley’s “workplace [was]
permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that [was] sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and create an abusive working
environment.” Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132, 1144 (10th Cir. 2008). To hold an
employer liable for failure to respond to racial harassment in a reasonable manner, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the racial
harassment. Ford v. West, 222 F.3d 767, 776 (10th Cir. 2000). An employer has actual knowledge
of harassment if the plaintiff has reported the harassment to management-level employees, and
an employer has constructive knowledge “where the pervasiveness of the harassment supports an
inference of employer knowledge.” Id. Here, Mr. Bradley has not provided evidence that his
allegedly hostile work environment met these requirements.
As an initial matter, the evidence in this case does not support an inference of employer
knowledge for any of the incidents Mr. Bradley did not report. He alleges that security followed
him around one day but that he was not sure if it had to do with race, that his associate asked him
what he would do if the associate used a slur (which the associate did not), and that he overheard
a conversation about racial slur usage in Germany. UMF No. 19–22. These incidents, while
potentially uncomfortable if true, include no accompanying facts to suggest that Amazon
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 10 of 14

11
management knew about them. They also do not rise to the level of severity or pervasiveness
necessary to establish a hostile work environment claim. See Lounds v. Lincare, Inc., 812 F.3d
1208, 1223 (10th Cir. 2015) (to establish a hostile work environment, “the plaintiff must show
more than a few isolated incidents of racial enmity”).
Regarding the reported incidents, Mr. Bradley’s claim fares no better. Evidence supports
that the following instances of alleged racism were reported to Amazon: 1) that Mr. Bradley was
angrily called a “Black man” by a coworker during an argument, and 2) that Mr. Bradley
believed the sexual harassment allegations against him were racially discriminatory and reported
them. UMF Nos. 40, 54. Amazon disciplined the coworker who made the racial comment. UMF
No. 39; Doc. 74-11 at 3. And when Mr. Bradley voiced his belief that he was being discriminated
against, he was directed to call Amazon’s ethics hotline, which he did not do. UMF Nos. 54–55;
Doc. 74-10 at 24. “Plaintiff bears the burden of presenting evidence establishing a genuine issue
of fact that the employer’s response [to the racial harassment] was unreasonable.” Ford v. West,
222 F.3d 767, 776 (10th Cir. 2000). Here, Mr. Bradley has not brought evidence that Amazon’s
discipline of his coworker who made a racial comment was unreasonable—for example,
evidence that this coworker continued to harass him, undeterred by the discipline Amazon
imposed. Similarly, he has not brought evidence that it would have been futile to call Amazon’s
ethics hotline to report his belief that the sexual harassment investigation was racially
discriminatory. He stated his belief that if he had “to go through another department with
Amazon,” the people he contacted “are just going to conceal things, lie, make it seem like . . .
this is nothing, no, it’s not a big deal,” because that was what he felt he experienced with his
worker’s compensation proceedings. Doc. 74-10 at 24–25. But he has brought no evidence that
the same individuals work in both the workers’ compensation department and the ethics hotline,
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 11 of 14

12
that both parts of the company followed the same guidelines in addressing complaints by
employees, or that he ever experienced negative interactions with the ethics hotline in the past.
Therefore, he has provided no basis on which a reasonable jury could conclude that Amazon’s
response to his allegations of harassment was unreasonable.
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court grant summary judgment in Amazon’s favor on
Mr. Bradley’s hostile work environment claim.
D. Wrongful Termination (Count VI)
Mr. Bradley claims that he experienced wrongful termination because Amazon “fir[ed]
[him] based on lies,” led “biased investigations and made a pretextual decision.” Doc. 1 at 7.
Wrongful termination in New Mexico requires a plaintiff to demonstrate “that the employer
violated a clear mandate of public policy by discharging the employee.” Bourgeous v. Horizon
Healthcare Corp., 1994-NMSC-038, ¶ 11, 872 P.2d 852, 855, 117 N.M. 434, 437. It is not simply
a general claim to punish an employer for unwisely or even unfairly terminating an employee.
Mr. Bradley’s supporting facts outline his concerns that the sexual harassment investigations
against him were procedurally unfair: that he was not given adequate information throughout the
process, that there were errors and changes in documentation, and that his statements were not
taken. Doc. 1 at 17. But he does not allege that he was fired for doing something that public
policy encourages or refusing to do something required by his employer that public policy
condemns. See Andreas v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co./Nw. Mut., No. 1:07-cv-00312-JC-ACT, 2009
WL 10708297, at *2 (D.N.M. Mar. 26, 2009). Rather, he essentially alleges that he was fired
unfairly because his employer did not listen to him or communicate with him during the
investigation process.
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 12 of 14

13
To the extent Mr. Bradley discusses voicing his concern that discrimination was at issue,
Doc. 1 at 17, it is unclear whether he also is arguing that he was wrongfully discharged because
of his race or in retaliation for the complaint of racism or whether this statement is simply part of
the narrative of events. “While pleadings are to be liberally construed by New Mexico’s courts,
we will not read into a complaint a cause of action that is not stated.” Rist v. Design Ctr. at Floor
Concepts, 2013-NMCA-109, ¶ 23, 312 P.3d 681, 687. The substance of Mr. Bradley’s statement
of facts suggests that his wrongful discharge claim is based solely on perceived procedural issues
with the sexual harassment investigations; I do not recommend that the Court read additional
allegations into this claim where Mr. Bradley has not communicated them clearly.
Apart from alleging deficiencies, Mr. Bradley also has brought no evidence that he faced
discharge for performing an act that public policy encourages or refraining from doing something
that public policy condemns. At the summary judgment stage, such evidence is required.
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court GRANT summary judgment in Amazon’s favor on this
claim.
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 13 of 14

14
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, I recommend that the Court GRANT Amazon’s motion
for summary judgment (Doc. 74) in its entirety.
THE PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a copy of
these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written objections
with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Written objections
must be both timely and specific. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., With Buildings,
Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, Known as: 2121 E. 30th St., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 73
F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). A party must file any objections with the Clerk of the
District Court within the fourteen-day period if that party wants to have appellate review
of the proposed findings and recommended disposition. Failure to file timely and specific
objections will result in waiver of de novo review by a district or appellate court. Id. In
other words, if no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.
____________________________________
LAURA FASHING
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00030-SMD-LF Document 84 Filed 04/20/26 Page 14 of 14