United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
OPINION & ORDER
M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline D. Austin, made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Pamila Ndanyi
(“Ndanyi”) alleges that she was terminated in
retaliation for filing a South Carolina Workers'
Compensation claim and discrimination charges with the South
Carolina Human Affairs Commission (“SCHAC”) and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”). Magistrate Judge Austin recommends
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect
to Ndanyi's EEOC-related retaliation claim arising under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”), and remanding the remaining state law claims to
the state court. After review and for the reasons set forth
below, the court adopts the magistrate judge's Report and
Bobby Kimmons, Brandy Reese, and The Woodlands at
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Objs.,
generally, ECF No. 16.) Ndanyi did not file any objections.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific.
Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party's right to further judicial review, including
appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the
district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of
specific objections to the Report and Recommendation
of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
present one specific objection. Defendants object to the
magistrate judge's recommendation that Ndanyi's
remaining state law claims be remanded to the state court.
Defendants argue that the court should retain supplemental
jurisdiction over Ndanyi's state law retaliation claim
related to her discrimination charge filed with the SCHAC and
dismiss it because it is barred by the applicable statute of
limitation. (Objs. 2-3, ECF No. 16.)
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction.” “[U]nder the authority of
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), authorizing a federal court to
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a district
court has inherent power to dismiss the case or, in cases
removed from State court, to remand, provided the conditions
set forth in § 1367(c) for declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction have been met.” Hinson v.
Norwest Fin. S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 617 (4th Cir.
2001). Ndanyi has presented one federal claim arising under
Title VII for retaliation for filing a discrimination charge
with the EEOC, and both Ndanyi and Defendants agree that this
federal claim should be dismissed. (Resp. Opp'n Mot.
Dismiss 1, ECF No. 12 (“Plaintiff admits that she does
not have a cause of action under Federal Law and most
particularly Title VII[.]”); Objs. 1, ECF No. 16.)
Thus, only two state law claims for retaliation remain
related to Ndanyi's workers' compensation claim and
SCHAC charge. Accordingly, it is within the court's
discretion to remand the remaining state law claims to the
state court because no claims over which the court has
original jurisdiction remain.
argue that the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction
over Ndanyi's retaliation claim related to her SCHAC
charge based on Ketema v. Midwest Stamping, Inc..
No. 05-1866, 2006 WL 1307934 (4th Cir. May 12, 2006)
(unpublished); (Objs. 2, ECF No. 16.) However, in
Ketema, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit held that the lower court abused its
discretion in not retaining supplemental jurisdiction over
the plaintiff's remaining state law claims where the
action was originally filed in federal court, it had been
pending for a lengthy period of time, discovery had been
completed, and refiling the action in state court would be
fruitless because the statute of limitations period had run.
Id. at *1. Conversely, Ndanyi's action was
originally filed in state court, has been pending for a short
period of time, discovery has not been completed, and the
action will not need to be refiled in state court.
Accordingly, the court declines to retain supplemental
jurisdiction over either remaining state law claims.
after a thorough review of the magistrate judge's Report
and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate
Judge Austin's Report and Recommendation.
that the Defendants' motion to dismiss, docket number 6,
is granted in part with respect to Ndanyi's Title VII
claim and denied in part with respect to Ndanyi's state
law claims. It is further
that Ndanyi's state law claims are remanded to the state
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that she has the right to appeal
this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof,
pursuant to Rules 3 and ...