Hinton v. Mitchell et al

Filing 43

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 34 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and terminating 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 11/06/2012. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL
COLUMBIA DIVISION

Gloria D. Hinton,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Chad Mitchell; and Rock Hill School
District 3,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 0:12-1161-JFA-PJG

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Gloria D. Hinton, brings this civil action against the
defendants, contending that she was unfairly terminated from her job as a food service
manager at Dutchman Creek Middle School, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the action should be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and
the court incorporates such without a recitation.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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 the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge entered an
order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). The plaintiff was
advised of her right to respond to the motion to dismiss, but she failed to do so. The
Magistrate Judge then issued a second order allowing her additional time to respond to
the motion to dismiss, but the plaintiff did not respond.
Finally, the plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file objections to the Report
and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on September 17, 2012. The
court granted the motion and the plaintiff filed her objection (ECF No. 42) which merely
states:
“I am filing an objection to [34] Report and Recommendation. I was
violated of my constitutional rights, by the defendants named. I have
suffered from this and I asked the courts that I be made whole.”
The court does not consider this to be a specific objection as it does not identify the
portions of the Report to which an objection is made, nor does it state the basis for the
objection. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this
court is not required to given any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the
Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The
Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 6, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District J