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)

Download PDF
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

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?