Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Mensack v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health

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

August 17, 2016

Claire M. Mensack, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Department of Mental Health and John H. Magill, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL)

          CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE, Senior United States District Judge.

         Through this action, Plaintiff Claire M. Mensack (“Mensack”) seeks recovery from her former employer, Defendant South Carolina Department of Mental Health (“the Department”) and the Department’s Director, John H. Magill, for events surrounding and including the termination of her employment on November 19, 2014. Mensack asserts six causes of action, most of which depend on multiple legal theories, some arising under federal and some arising under state law.

         The matter is before the court on Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal. ECF No. 6. Specifically, Defendants seek to dismiss Mensack’s claims to the extent they rely on (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., (2) South Carolina Human Affairs Law (“SCHAL”), SC Code §§ 1-13-80, 1-13-85, (3) the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., (4) state common law theory of wrongful termination in violation of public policy (“Public Policy Discharge”), and (5) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). Id. If granted in full, the motion would result in dismissal of the only claim against Magill (Fourth cause of action for violation of Section 1983) and three causes of action asserted against the Department (Third, Fifth and Sixth causes of action asserted under the ADA, SCHAL, FLSA and common law of South Carolina). It would also limit the two remaining claims (for disparate treatment and retaliation) to reliance on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

         For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in full and the challenged claims are dismissed or limited as noted above. As this resolves the only claim against Magill, he is dismissed from this action. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on the remaining claims against the Department.

         BACKGROUND

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On July 6, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal be granted as to all challenged claims. ECF No. 22.

         The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Mensack filed objections on July 26, 2016. ECF No. 24. Defendants filed a response on August 12, 2016. ECF No. 27. The matter is now ripe for resolution.

         STANDARD

         The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of an objection, the court reviews only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee’s note)).

         DISCUSSION

         For reasons explained below, the court adopts both the reasoning and recommendation of the Report. Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal is, therefore, granted.

         I. ADA and SCHAL-based Claims

         The Report recommends Mensack’s claims be dismissed to the extent they rely on either the ADA or SCHAL. ECF No. 22 at 5-7, 11-13. This would dispose of the Third cause of action in full and limit the First and Second causes of action to reliance on Title VII.

         Plaintiff does not address these recommendations in her objections. The court has, therefore, reviewed the Report for plain error as to these recommendations. Finding none, the court adopts the reasoning and recommendations of the Report and dismisses the First and Second causes of action to the extent they rely ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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