Introduction

This Eleventh Circuit per curiam opinion addresses two recurring litigation issues that resonate well beyond the specific dispute: (1) preservation of objections to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and (2) evidentiary burdens to survive summary judgment on a consumer‑facing racial discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The case arises from Bath & Body Works’s refusal to accept plaintiff Latara Harris’s attempted exchange of candles. Proceeding pro se on appeal, Harris challenged (i) the magistrate judge’s denial of her request to file a second set of late Rule 26 disclosures—containing exchange receipts, telephone records, and corporate documents—and (ii) the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Bath & Body Works on her § 1981 claim.

The court dismissed the challenge to the discovery ruling for failure to preserve the issue under Rule 72(a) and affirmed summary judgment on the merits, concluding Harris failed to present direct evidence, suitable comparators, or a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence showing that race was the but‑for cause of the denied exchange.

The panel also noted that the appeal had been held in abeyance pending the decision in Weinstein v. 440 Corp., No. 23‑13807 (11th Cir. July 25, 2025), which clarified that Rule 41(a) permits dismissal of individual plaintiffs in multi‑plaintiff cases where all claims against any defendant have been voluntarily relinquished. With that clarification, the panel confirmed appellate jurisdiction following a co‑plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal.

Summary of the Opinion

• Discovery Ruling (Dismissed for Waiver): Because Harris did not file timely objections in the district court to the magistrate judge’s nondispositive order denying her second untimely Rule 26 disclosures, she waived appellate review. The court dismissed this portion of the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), and Smith v. School Board of Orange County, 487 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007).
• Summary Judgment (Affirmed): On de novo review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Bath & Body Works on the § 1981 claim. The court held that:
  • No direct evidence existed; the statement attributed to “Oberhausen” amounted at most to an isolated general remark (a “stray remark”), insufficient as direct proof of discriminatory intent.
  • The identified comparators (Troche and McNair) were not similarly situated in all material respects and thus could not sustain a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas.
  • Harris failed to show pretext or a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence; the company’s non‑discriminatory explanations—including a request to contact the emergency operations center—were not shown to be false or a mask for race discrimination; social‑media “stalking” allegations were unsubstantiated.
• Disposition: Affirmed in part (summary judgment), dismissed in part (discovery ruling).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Rule 72(a) and Magistrate Practice:
  • 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) authorize magistrate judges to resolve nondispositive pretrial matters and require parties to lodge objections within 14 days for district‑court review. The Eleventh Circuit applied these authorities to hold that failure to object waives appellate review. The panel relied on Smith v. School Board of Orange County, 487 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2007).
  • Effect here: Harris’s challenge to the denial of her late Rule 26 disclosures (receipts, phone records, corporate documents) was dismissed. This underscores the bright‑line preservation rule: object or waive.
• Appellate Jurisdiction and Voluntary Dismissals:
  • Weinstein v. 440 Corp., No. 23‑13807 (11th Cir. July 25, 2025), held that Rule 41(a) allows dismissal of individual plaintiffs in multi‑plaintiff suits when all claims against any defendant are voluntarily relinquished. The court referenced Weinstein to confirm jurisdiction after co‑plaintiff Sincere Harris’s voluntary dismissal.
  • Effect here: The panel’s jurisdictional note assures litigants that properly structured voluntary dismissals of co‑plaintiffs do not defeat appellate jurisdiction over remaining parties’ claims.
• Summary Judgment Standards:
  • Todd v. Fayette County School District, 998 F.3d 1203, 1214 (11th Cir. 2021), reiterates de novo review and draws all reasonable inferences for the nonmovant without weighing credibility.
  • Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2012), places the initial burden on the movant to show no genuine dispute, then shifts burden to the nonmovant to produce admissible evidence beyond pleadings.
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986), requires more than a scintilla; evidence must support a reasonable jury verdict.
  • Cordoba v. Dillard’s, 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005), rejects “unsupported speculation” as creating only a false issue.
  • Effect here: The court rigorously enforced the evidentiary threshold, finding Harris’s proof insufficient to create a triable issue on discriminatory intent.
• § 1981 Framework and Causation:
  • Comcast Corp. v. National Ass’n of African American‑Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327, 341 (2020), imposes a but‑for causation requirement for § 1981 claims.
  • Moore v. Grady Memorial Hospital, 834 F.3d 1168, 1171–72 (11th Cir. 2016), articulates the elements: minority status, discriminatory intent, and discrimination concerning rights to make/enforce contracts.
  • Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 479–80 (2006), requires the plaintiff to have rights under an existing or proposed contract.
  • Effect here: Even assuming the retail exchange implicates the “making and enforcing” of contracts (§ 1981(b)), Harris still had to show that but for race, the exchange would have been accepted. She did not.
• Proof Structures and Evidentiary Routes:
  • Lewis v. City of Union City (Lewis I), 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc), and Ziyadat v. Diamondrock Hosp. Co., 3 F.4th 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2021), confirm the McDonnell Douglas framework applies to § 1981 claims proven with circumstantial evidence, including the “similarly situated in all material respects” comparator standard.
  • Jefferson v. Sewon America, 891 F.3d 911, 921–22 (11th Cir. 2018), and Merritt v. Dillard Paper, 120 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 1997), define direct evidence as requiring no inference; ambiguous comments are not direct evidence.
  • Brooks v. County Commission of Jefferson County, 446 F.3d 1160, 1163 (11th Cir. 2006), Gogel v. Kia Motors, 967 F.3d 1121, 1148 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), and Alvarez v. Royal Atlantic, 610 F.3d 1253, 1265–66 (11th Cir. 2010), set a high bar for proving pretext—showing both falsity and discriminatory motive, with focus on the employer’s state of mind.
  • Ross v. Rhodes Furniture, 146 F.3d 1286, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 1998), and EEOC v. Alton Packaging, 901 F.2d 920 (11th Cir. 1990), treat isolated or generic racial remarks as “stray remarks;” while they may be circumstantial when paired with other evidence, they are insufficient alone as direct evidence.
  • Lewis v. City of Union City (Lewis II), 934 F.3d 1169, 1185 (11th Cir. 2019), describes the “convincing mosaic” alternative to the prima facie framework.
  • Effect here: Harris could not show direct evidence; her comparators failed under the “material respects” test; and the remaining pieces did not coalesce into a convincing mosaic.

Legal Reasoning Applied

1. Waiver of Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Nondispositive Order: The magistrate judge denied Harris’s attempt to lodge a second set of late Rule 26 disclosures containing receipts, phone records, and unspecified corporate documents. Because Harris did not file Rule 72(a) objections within 14 days to seek district‑court review, she forfeited appellate review. The panel dismissed this challenge for lack of preservation. Accusations of “judicial prejudice” or complaints about counsel’s withdrawal could not sidestep Rule 72(a)’s strict objection requirement.
2. Summary Judgment on § 1981 Claim:
   • Direct Evidence: The comment attributed to “Oberhausen” was, at most, an isolated general remark. Under Ross and Alton Packaging, such “stray remarks” are not direct evidence. Standing alone, they do not establish discrimination without inference.
   • McDonnell Douglas Prima Facie Case: Harris failed to identify comparators “similarly situated in all material respects.” The court concluded that the individuals she relied upon (Troche and McNair) were not appropriate comparators. The fact that “some” stores may have accepted similar exchanges did not establish that materially similar exchange decisions were made by the same decision‑maker under the same policies, at the same time, and for the same reasons vis‑à‑vis non‑minority customers. Without suitable comparators, the prima facie case failed.
   • Pretext: Even assuming the employer articulated a legitimate, non‑discriminatory reason (e.g., policy enforcement, or requesting the store to contact the emergency operations center), Harris did not show both falsity and racial motive as required by Brooks/Gogel/Alvarez. The court emphasized the focus on the decision‑maker’s actual belief, not the plaintiff’s view or “reality” outside the decision‑maker’s head.
   • “Convincing Mosaic” Route: The panel found no triable “mosaic.” Neither suspicious timing, nor ambiguous statements, nor systematically better treatment of similarly situated customers, nor evidence of pretext coalesced to permit a jury inference of intentional discrimination. Allegations of social‑media “stalking” were unsubstantiated. The assertion of tampering with a recording/transcript did not alter the analysis.
   • But‑For Causation: Under Comcast, § 1981 demands proof that race was the but‑for cause of the denied exchange. The record did not cross that threshold.

Impact and Practical Implications

• Preservation Is Paramount: The decision is a sharp reminder—especially for pro se litigants—that objections to magistrate judges’ nondispositive orders must be filed within 14 days under Rule 72(a). Missing this step forecloses appellate review, regardless of the perceived importance of the excluded materials.
• Consumer‑Facing § 1981 Claims in Retail Settings: Plaintiffs challenging retail refusals (e.g., returns/exchanges) must marshal evidence that directly ties a refusal to race. Useful evidence includes:
  • Non‑minority customers treated differently under materially identical circumstances (same store, same manager/decision‑maker, same policy, same time frame, same product/receipt status).
  • Consistent internal policies or training materials showing differential application.
  • Data suggesting systematically better treatment of non‑minority customers in identical scenarios.
  Absent that, the claim will struggle under both the comparator and “convincing mosaic” paths.
• “Stray Remarks” Doctrine Reaffirmed: The court’s treatment of an isolated remark as insufficient to constitute direct evidence aligns with Eleventh Circuit precedent. Plaintiffs should not rely on isolated, ambiguous remarks without corroborating facts that tightly connect the remark to the specific decision at issue.
• Pretext Is a High Bar: Demonstrating pretext requires evidence that the proffered reason is false and that discrimination is the real reason. Showing mere unfairness, error, or a debatable customer‑service policy is insufficient. The focus is on the decision‑maker’s contemporaneous belief, not on the correctness of the decision.
• Jurisdictional Clarity After Voluntary Dismissals: The panel’s reliance on Weinstein v. 440 Corp. signals stability in appellate pathways when co‑plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims. Properly executed Rule 41(a) dismissals of individual plaintiffs in multi‑plaintiff suits will not, standing alone, deprive the court of jurisdiction over the remaining appellant’s final judgment.
• Discovery Discipline Matters: Attempts to supplement the record with late disclosures risk exclusion. Where excluded evidence might be case‑dispositive, litigants must promptly challenge magistrate orders to preserve review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Nondispositive Order: A pretrial ruling that does not finally resolve a claim (e.g., discovery rulings). To challenge it, a party must file timely objections in the district court (Rule 72(a)).
• Rule 26 Disclosures: Parties must timely disclose key information and documents early in the case. Late disclosures require leave and can be denied if untimely or prejudicial.
• Summary Judgment: A way to resolve a case without trial when there is no genuine dispute over material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Direct evidence proves discriminatory intent without inference (rare). Circumstantial evidence suggests discrimination and is commonly tested under the McDonnell Douglas framework.
• Comparator: A similarly situated person outside the plaintiff’s protected class who was treated more favorably under materially identical circumstances. In retail cases, this typically means the same store, decision‑maker, policy, time frame, and product/receipt situation.
• Pretext: The employer’s stated reason is a cover‑up for discrimination. The plaintiff must show the reason is false and that discrimination is the real reason.
• “Stray Remarks”: Isolated or generic comments that are too attenuated from the decision to constitute direct evidence; they may have limited value as part of circumstantial evidence.
• Convincing Mosaic: A compilation of circumstantial facts (timing, statements, patterns, inconsistent explanations) that, taken together, allow a jury to infer discrimination even without a prima facie case with comparators.
• But‑For Causation (Comcast): The plaintiff must show that, but for her race, the adverse decision (here, refusal to accept an exchange) would not have occurred.
• Rule 41(a) Dismissal of Individual Plaintiffs: Under Weinstein, in multi‑plaintiff cases, individual plaintiffs can voluntarily dismiss their claims without derailing appellate jurisdiction over final judgments concerning remaining parties, provided all claims against any defendant have been relinquished.

Conclusion

Harris v. Bath & Body Works pairs a procedural lesson with a substantive reminder. Procedurally, Rule 72(a)’s objection requirement is unforgiving: failing to timely object to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order waives appellate review, even when the excluded materials could be important. Substantively, § 1981 claims in retail contexts must meet the exacting standards for proof of discriminatory intent and but‑for causation. Isolated remarks, non‑comparable situations, and speculative assertions will not defeat summary judgment. The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit’s comparator and pretext jurisprudence while acknowledging the jurisdictional stability afforded by Weinstein in multi‑plaintiff litigation. For practitioners and pro se litigants alike, the case underscores the centrality of preservation, timely evidentiary development, and carefully constructed comparator or “mosaic” showings when alleging racial discrimination in consumer transactions.

Holding in brief: Appeal dismissed in part for failure to preserve objections to a nondispositive discovery order; summary judgment for Bath & Body Works affirmed where the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence, suitable comparators, or a convincing mosaic demonstrating that race was the but‑for cause of the refused exchange.