Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Family Health Centers, Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division

August 19, 2014

Linda Michelle Jones, Plaintiff,
v.
Family Health Centers, Inc.; and Leon A. Brunson, Sr., Defendants.

ORDER

J. MICHELLE CHILDS, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and the South Carolina Human Affairs Law, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-13-10, et seq., as well as a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") (ECF No. 18), filed on July 15, 2014, recommending that Defendants' motion (ECF No.

7) be granted as to Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and denied without prejudice as to her claims pursuant to the South Carolina Human Affairs Law. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.

The magistrate judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. "The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination." Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976)). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 18 at 6.) However, no objections have been filed to the Report.

In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).

Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and the record in this case. The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 18). It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and DENIED without prejudice as to her claims pursuant to the South Carolina Human Affairs Law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.