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.

James v. QHG of South Carolina

United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Florence Division

March 17, 2015

David L. James, Plaintiff,
v.
QHG of South Carolina, d/b/a Carolinas Hospital System, and Carolinas Medical Alliance, and Carolinas Hospital System, Defendant.

ORDER AND OPINION

Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge

On June 17, 2014, the plaintiff David L. James ("the plaintiff) filed this action against QHG of South Carolina, d/b/a Carolinas Hospital System, and Carolinas Medical Alliance, and Carolinas Hospital System ("the defendant") alleging claims against his former employer for race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII").

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this employment discrimination matterwas referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for consideration of pretrial matters. The magistrate judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation which recommends that the defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to the plaintiffs Title VII claims be granted, and the remaining state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice to their being brought in state court. (ECF No. 25.) The magistrate judge concluded that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for the plaintiffs failure to include an EEOC Right to Sue Notice.

The plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 26.) More importantly, he filed supplemental objections, on February 9, 2015, indicating that he has, in fact, received a Right to Sue Notice, as required. (ECF Nos. 31, 31 -1). The defendant has not made any reply, in response to the plaintiffs request to moot the motion.

Accordingly, the jurisdictional deficiency alleged in the motion to dismiss has been cured. The motion is deemed moot.[1]

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.