Levi v. Harris Teeter, LLC et al
Filing
28
ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation. The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19 ] with respect to Defendants' alternative request that this case be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. The Court hereby TRANSFERS this case to the appropriate division of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Signed by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 9/15/2016. (hcic, )[Transferred from South Carolina on 9/16/2016.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Moshe Levi,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Harris Teeter, LLC, and The Kroger Co.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-01083-RBH
ORDER
Plaintiff Moshe Levi, proceeding pro se, filed this employment action against the two abovecaptioned Defendants, alleging they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000(e) et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, by discriminating and retaliating against him on the basis of
his race and religion. ECF Nos. 1 & 16. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 19. The
matter is 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) and Local Rule
73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 25. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and transfer this case to the Western District
of North Carolina. Id. at 4-5.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection,
a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 25] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19] with respect to
Defendants’ alternative request that this case be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina.
The Court hereby TRANSFERS this case to the appropriate division of the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
September 15, 2016
1
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Objections were due by September 12, 2016. See ECF No. 25.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?