Smith v. Rivera-Llamas et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
ARIANA SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
SANDRA RIVERA-LLAMAS, et al.,
Defendants.
Civ. No. 24-1547 (ADC)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. 	Background
On November 27, 2024, plaintiff Ariana Smith (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Sandra Rivera-Llamas and Beaumedics LLC (“defendants”) claiming physical, emotional, and
other damages from a non-invasive cosmetic procedure performed by defendants. ECF No. 1.
By January 23, 2025, the defendants had answered the complaint and denied liability. ECF Nos.
10, 11. After several procedural developments, the case was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte on July 1, 2025, for, among other things, a report and
recommendation on any dispositive motion that may be filed. ECF No. 24.
On September 3, 2025, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw from plaintiff’s
legal representation due to an “irreconcilable impasse regarding the direction and management
of this litigation.” ECF No. 30. The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on September 11, 2025, after
which she granted the motion to withdraw and gave plaintiff sixty days to appear with new
Case 3:24-cv-01547-ADC-MBA Document 41 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 3

Civ. No. 24-1547 (ADC) 	Page 2
legal representation. ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34. The Magistrate Judge warned her, in unambiguous
terms, that “[f]ailure to comply may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.” ECF No. 33.
Plaintiff did not comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order, and on November 15, 2025,
defendants jointly moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff
did not oppose.
On December 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) that the Court grant the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. ECF
No. 39. The same was ordered to be notified by mail to plaintiff’s mailing address. Id. It was
notified again on January 14, 2026. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff did not file any objection to the R&R.
II. 	Legal Standard
Absent objections, the Court is free to adopt a report and recommendation’s factual and
legal determinations. See M. v. Falmouth School Department, 847 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 2017)
(“Absent objection ... a district court has a right to assume that the affected party agrees to the
magistrate's recommendation.”) (cleaned up); see also Roy v. Hanks, No. 22-1302, 2023 WL
3166353, at *1 (1st Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) (“Only those issues fairly raised by… objections to the
magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court….”) (quoting Falmouth); United
States v. Maldonado-Pena, 4 F.4th 1, 20 (1st Cir. 2021) (“[W]hen, as here, a party fails to file an
objection to an R&R, the party has waived any [appellate] review of the district court's
decision.”) (citing United States v. Díaz-Rosado, 857 F.3d 89, 94 (1st Cir. 2017)).
Case 3:24-cv-01547-ADC-MBA Document 41 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 3

Civ. No. 24-1547 (ADC) 	Page 3
III. 	Discussion and Conclusion
It is evident from the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and the record that plaintiff has failed to
comply with the Court’s orders and failed to diligently prosecute her claim. Despite being on
notice that her failure to act risked the dismissal of her claims, plaintiff failed to act. Accordingly,
after having performed a review of the R&R and the record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s unobjected R&R at ECF No. 39 and GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss
at ECF No. 36. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Clerk of Court is to enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
At San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 3rd day of February 2026.
S/AIDA M. DELGADO-COLON
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01547-ADC-MBA Document 41 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 3