United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Mary I. Bell, Plaintiff,
SDH Education East LLC, Defendant.
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
Bell (Plaintiff) filed this civil action in state court,
alleging job-related discrimination claims against SDH
Education East, LLC a/k/a Sodexo (Defendant). (ECF No. 1-5).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to
a Magistrate Judge for review.
filed her amended Complaint in the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas on August 29, 2017. Plaintiff served a copy of
the summons and complaint on Defendant on September 7, 2017.
Defendant subsequently removed the action to federal court on
October 6, 2017. (ECF No. 1). Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss on December 13, 2017, arguing that Plaintiff claims
are barred by res judicata, the applicable statute
of limitations, Plaintiff's failure to exhaust her
administrative remedies, and for Plaintiff's failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 23).
order issued on December 14, 2017, pursuant to Roseboro
v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was
advised of the dismissal procedures and of the possible
consequences if she failed to adequately respond to the
Motion. (ECF No. 24). The Magistrate Judge granted repeated
requests by Plaintiff for additional time to respond to the
Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 28, 32). On March 20, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.
March 27, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (Report), recommending Defendant's Motion
be granted. (ECF No. 42). On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed
a motion with this Court asking for a stay of her case due to
high levels of stress. (ECF No. 46). This Court denied the
motion to stay, but granted Plaintiff sixty additional days
to file her objections. (ECF No. 47). On June 13, 2018,
Plaintiff filed another motion to stay for similar reasons.
(ECF No. 50).
Court again denied the motion to stay, but granted Plaintiff
an additional thirty days to file her objections. (ECF No.
51). Plaintiff filed a document titled Objections to the
Report and Recommendation (First Objection) on June 18, 2018.
(ECF No. 53). Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's
objections on July 2, 2018. (ECF No. 54). Plaintiff filed a
second document titled Objection to the Report and
Recommendation (Second Objection) on July 19, 2018. (ECF No.
55). Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's Second
Objection. (ECF No. 56). This matter is ripe for review.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation and opines that Defendant
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) should be granted. (ECF No.
42). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and
standards of law on this matter, and this court incorporates
those facts and standards without a recitation.
district court is only required to conduct a de novo review
of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report
to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W.Va. Bd. of
Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In
the absence of specific objections to portions of the
Magistrate's Report, this court is not required to give
an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Thus, the
court must only review those portions of the Report to which
Plaintiff has made a specific written objection. Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316
(4th Cir. 2005).
objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge
to focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are
at the heart of the parties' dispute.'”
Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas,
LLC, No. 0:15-cv-04009-JMC, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6
(D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2017) (citing One Parcel of Real Prop.
Known as 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir.
1996)). A specific objection to the Magistrate's Report
thus requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the
Complaint or a mere citation to legal authorities. See
Workman v. Perry, No. 6:17-cv-00765-RBH, 2017 WL
4791150, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2017). A specific objection
must “direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
stated, nonspecific objections have the same effect as would
a failure to object.” Staley v. Norton, No.
9:07-0288-PMD, 2007 WL 821181, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2007)
(citing Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). The court
reviews portions “not objected to-including those
portions to which only ‘general and conclusory'
objections have been made-for clear error.”
Id. (emphasis added) (citing Diamond, 416
F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 200;
Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47).
Plaintiff's First Objection, Plaintiff made no specific
objection to the Magistrate's Report. See (ECF
No. 53). Plaintiff does not direct this court to any specific
error by the Magistrate Judge. Id. To the contrary,
Plaintiff appears to summarize the procedural history in this
case and tell the Court that she cannot afford an attorney.
Id. Plaintiff also attached ninety-eight pages of
documents to her objection. ...