Belton v. West Marine Inc

Filing 28

ORDER accepting 25 Report and Recommendation. Defendant's Partial 12 Motion to Dismiss is granted. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 11/13/2015. (mwal)

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

Cheryl Belton,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
West Marine, Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A No.: 0:15-cv-00167-TLW-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff Cheryl Belton brought this action pro se pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII), alleging racial discrimination against her former
employer, Defendant West Marine, Inc. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss
Plaintiff’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims 1 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). (ECF No. 12.) This matter is presently before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R; ECF No. 25) filed by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Shiva Hodges, to whom this case is assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting
Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. Objections were due by September 21, 2015, and no
objections were filed.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the

Plaintiff’s Complaint did not expressly state a retaliation claim; however, Defendant moved for
dismissal to the extent that Plaintiff was attempting to assert such a claim.

1

1

R&R of the Magistrate Judge, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the record in this case, and
the analysis asserted by the Defendant. Again, the Court notes that Plaintiff failed to file an
objection to the R&R recommending that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss be granted.
Accordingly, the R&R is hereby ACCEPTED and it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the R&R.

s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
November 13, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

2