United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an action for employment discrimination based on a disability
in alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (ADA), as amended by
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, effective January 1, 2009, 42
U.S.C. §§12102, et seq. The Court has
jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331. This matter is before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court Defendants'
PruittHealth, Inc. and PruittHealth-North Augusta, LLC
(collectively PruittHealth) motion to dismiss be denied. The
Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report to which specific objection is
made, and the Court 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. §
Magistrate Judge filed the Report on August 31, 2018, ECF No.
9, and PruittHealth filed its objections on September 14,
2018, ECF No. 10. Plaintiff Michelle Hudgins (Hudgins) filed
a reply to PruittHealth's objections on September 28,
2018, in which she insists the Court should adopt the Report.
ECF No. 12. The Court has carefully reviewed
PruittHealth's objections but holds them to be meritless.
sets forth four separate but related objections to the
Report. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court is
required to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the
Magistrate Judge's Report to which a specific objection
has been made. The Court need not conduct a de novo review,
however, Awhen a party makes general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error
in the [Magistrate Judge's] proposed findings and
recommendations.@ Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44,
47 (4th Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). As
provided above, however, the Court need not-and will
not-address any of PruittHealth's arguments that fail to
point the Court to alleged specific errors the Magistrate
Judge made in the Report.
first and second objections parallel arguments they made in
their original motion to dismiss and reply memorandum in
support, which were discussed in detail and rejected by the
Magistrate Judge. Compare ECF No. 5, at 6-8 with ECF
No. 10 at 6-12 (Objection No. 1) and ECF No. 5 at 8-12 with
ECF No. 10 at 12-14 (Objection No. 2). This Court declines to
give PruittHealth a proverbial “second bite at the
apple.” Simply put, this Court concurs with the
Magistrate Judge's thorough analysis of these issues, and
therefore declines to further address these objections.
next objects the Magistrate Judge erred in determining the
equities favor the Hudgins. PruittHealth asserts Hudgins
failed to submit her signed and verified Form 5 Charge until
more than 300 days after her termination. PruittHealth's
argument, however, ignores the fact the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) neglected to provide Hudgins
with a proposed Form 5 for her consideration and signing
until after the 300 day deadline passed.
asserts the case upon which the Magistrate Judge and Hudgins
rely is inapplicable because, although the charge was sent to
the plaintiff in that case after the deadline, the charge
also contained material mistakes that PruittHealth asserts
distinguish the holding from the present case. This Court
disagrees with PruittHealth's position. The fact Hudgins
failed to receive the proposed Form 5 Charge until after her
300 day deadline passed tips the equities in her favor.
Therefore, PruittHealth's third objection will be
final objection is the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to
consider two cases PruittHealth argues are applicable to the
present case. This Court has reviewed the cases PruittHealth
cites, and holds they are inapposite. Therefore, this Court
will also overrule PruittHealth's fourth objection.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case
under the standard set forth above, the Court overrules
PruittHealth's objections, adopts the Report, and
incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the
Court PruittHealth's motion to dismiss is
DENIED and this case shall remain with the