United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Bryan Harwell United States District Judge.
Cynthia Smith filed this action against her former employer,
Defendant Sam Carbis Solutions Group, LLC, alleging she was
terminated in violation of the Family Medical Leave
Complaint [ECF No. 1]. Defendant filed a partial motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's state law claims for
intentional infliction of emotional distress
(“IIED”) and wrongful discharge in violation of
public policy. See ECF No. 5.
matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(g) for the District of South Carolina.
See R & R [ECF No. 18]. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court grant Defendant's partial
motion to dismiss. R & R at 1, 8. Plaintiff has filed
timely objections to the R & R. See Pl.'s
Objs. [ECF No. 22]. Defendant has filed a reply to
Plaintiff's objections. See ECF No. 24.
Review of the R & R
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
deciding a motion to dismiss made under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court must accept all
well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw
all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.
Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.,
591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009). A complaint must state a
“‘plausible claim for relief'” to
survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Walters v.
McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). The
court will not dismiss the plaintiff's complaint so long
as she provides adequate detail about her claims to show she
has a “more-than-conceivable chance of success on the
merits.” Owens v. Baltimore City State's
Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379, 396 (4th Cir. 2014)
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). “Once a claim has been stated adequately,
it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent
with the allegations in the complaint.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563. A complaint will survive a
motion to dismiss if it contains “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 570.
alleges she was subjected to a hostile work environment
during her employment with Defendant from September 2008 to
June 2015. Compl. at ¶¶ 3-5. She alleges she went
on medical leave after suffering an emotional breakdown on
May 19, 2015, initiated a workers' compensation claim on
June 11, 2015, and was terminated on June 30, 2015.
Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6, 10. She asserts five
causes of action: (1) FMLA interference, (2) FMLA
retaliation, (3) IIED, (4) retaliatory discharge for filing a
workers' compensation claim, and (5) wrongful discharge
in violation of public policy. Id. at ¶¶
moves to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims for IIED
and wrongful discharge. See ECF No. 5. The
Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant's motion.
R & R at 3-12. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation. See Pl.' Objs. at
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff's IIED
claim because she fails to state a ...