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.

Valentine v. Ali Management

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

June 4, 2015

Andre Valentine, Plaintiff,
v.
Ali Management, doing business as Sunoco; Nadeem Sheikh; Shahid Zamir, as agent of the Defendants; S.C. Aiken, Inc.; S.C. Sumter Broad, Inc.; S.C. Sumter Guignard, Inc.; S.C. Georgetown, Inc.; and Aliya Sheikh, Defendants.

ORDER

Terry L. Wooten Chief United States District Judge

On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, Andre Valentine, filed this action alleging race discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (ECF No. 1), and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case was previously assigned. (ECF No. 68). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 66) but permit the moving Defendants to file a motion in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rules before the expiration of the dispositive motion deadline. Objections to the Report were due by January 23, 2015. No objections were filed.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

This Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the record, and the relevant authority. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 68) is ACCEPTED. The motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 66) is DENIED without prejudice. The moving Defendants are permitted to file a motion in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rules before the expiration of the dispositive motion deadline.

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.