United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge
proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging
that his former employer, Defendant Cash America, and a
“Market Manager” at Cash America, Defendant
Iverson, discriminated against him because of his race, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.(ECF No. 1). On
May 9, 2018, Defendants Cash America and Iverson filed Motion
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, in the
alternative Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration. (ECF No. 30).
Plaintiff filed multiple responses, (ECF Nos. 49, 50), and
Defendants replied 53. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff subsequently
filed a sur reply. (ECF No. 54).
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g), D.S.C., this matter was referred to a
magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is
the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), which recommends that the court grant
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in part. (ECF No. 61 at
12). Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the
Motion to Dismiss be granted with prejudice as to Defendant
Iverson and granted as to any claims against Defendant Cash
America predating September 12, 2016. Id. The
magistrate judge recommends that the court deny the Motion to
Dismiss “in all other respects.” Id.
Additionally, the magistrate judge recommends that this court
grant the alternative motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss the case against Cash America without prejudice
pending arbitration. Id. Plaintiff was advised of
his right to file objections to the Report. Id. at
13. Plaintiff filed a document on October 23, 2018, asking
the court to allow his case to proceed to trial. (ECF No.
Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to
make a final determination in this matter remains with this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983). Rather, “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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
noted, after the magistrate judge issued the Report in this
case, Plaintiff filed a document asking that the court allow
his case to proceed to trial. (ECF No. 64). To the extent
that this request could be liberally construed as an
objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation that
this case be sent to arbitration, the court notes that
Plaintiff does not give any argument as to why arbitration
should not be compelled, and, therefore, is not a specific
objection. Additionally, this document does not mention,
reference or address the Report in any way. Although
documents filed pro se are “to be liberally
construed, ” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), courts are not
required to “conjure up questions never squarely
presented to them, ” Beaudett v. City of
Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Because
Plaintiff's post-Report filing does not present any
specific objections to the Report, the court declines further
consideration of its content.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court adopts the magistrate judge's Report (ECF No.
61) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, the court
GRANTS in part and denies in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30). Specifically,
the Motion to Dismiss is granted with
prejudice as to Defendant Iverson and is
granted as to any claims against Cash
America predating September 12, 2016. The Motion is
denied in all other respects. Furthermore,
the alternative Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (ECF No.
30) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
To the extent that the Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration
seeks to compel arbitration, the motion is
granted. However, the motion is
denied in all other respects, because the
court finds it appropriate to dismiss without prejudice the
case against Cash America pending arbitration, because the
only remaining claims are arbitrable. Accordingly, the remaining
claims against Defendant Cash America are DISMISSED
without prejudice pending arbitration.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Plaintiff's Complaint also
asserted allegations against “Brain Brook, ” a
regional manager for Cash America. (ECF No. 1). Defendant
Brook was dismissed from this case by court order on July 26,
2018. (ECF No. 58).
See Choice Hotels Int'l v. BSR
Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252 F.3d 707, 709 - 10 (4th Cir.
2001) (stating that “dismissal is a proper remedy when
all of the issues presented in a lawsuit are
arbitrable”); Rock v. Solar Rating & Cert.
Corp., No. 8:17-cv-3401-DCC-JDA, 2018 WL 3750617 (D.S.C.
July 23, 2018) (stating that ordinarily, a court “must
stay an action pending arbitration of any arbitrable claims,
with the exception that it may instead dismiss an action if
all claims asserted are arbitrable”); Bribson v.
SSC Sumter East Operating Co., LLC, No.
3:13-cv-02819-MGL, 2014 WL 3749317, at *2 (D.S.C. July 29,
2014) (stating that “the Fourth Circuit has also found
that when all the issues presented in a lawsuit ...