Starnes v. Harrell Industries, Inc.

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 10 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to stay discovery, compel arbitration, and to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, granting the portion of the motion seeking to stay discovery and compel arbitration and denying the portion of the motion seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 01/09/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jamie Starnes,

C/A No.: 0:13-01109-JFA-KDW
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Harrell Industries, Inc.,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Jamie Starnes (“Plaintiff”) brings the above-captioned case against his former
employer, Harrell Industries, Inc. (“Defendant”). In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he was
terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). This matter is before
the court on Defendant’s motion for an “Order Dismissing the Complaint, Staying Discovery,
and Compelling Arbitration.” See ECF No. 5.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she recommends that the court grant, in part, and deny, in part,
Defendant’s motion.

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the portion of

Defendant’s Motion seeking to stay discovery and compel arbitration be granted and that the
portion of the Motion seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint be denied. The Magistrate Judge
also recommended staying the entire litigation pending arbitration.

1

The Report and

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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on August 30, 2013. However, neither party
filed objections. In the absence of specific objections to the Report 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).
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 in its entirety.
Accordingly, the portion of Defendant’s Motion seeking to stay discovery and compel
arbitration is granted and the portion of the Motion seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is
denied. Further, the entire litigation is stayed pending arbitration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 9, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2