Stroman v. SC Department of Social Services

Filing 46

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REJECTING 40 Report and Recommendation. The court RECOMMITS the case to the Magistrate Judge to address the still pending FMLA and ADA claims in the context of Defendant's now pending Motion to Dismiss. Judge Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett added. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/14/2018. Motions referred to Paige J Gossett.(asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jeffrey S. Stroman,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
York County Department of Social
)
Services,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 0:18-cv-01632-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed on October 18, 2018. (ECF No. 40.) The Report addresses
Plaintiff Jeffrey S. Stroman’s suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1915 and recommends that the court grant
Plaintiff’s request to voluntarily withdraw his federal claims (ECF No. 34), dismiss the entire
case without prejudice, and terminate any other pending motions (ECF No. 21) as moot. For the
reasons stated herein, the court REJECTS the Report and RECOMMITS the matter to the
Magistrate Judge for further consideration consistent with the opinion below.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates
herein without a full recitation. (ECF No. 40.) On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,
filed this employment discrimination action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, raising claims
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et seq., and the
Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (ECF Nos. 12, 16.) In
response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 21), Plaintiff
filed a Second Amended Complaint, which the Magistrate Judge construed as a Motion to

1

Amend, seeking to withdraw his FMLA and ADA claims. (ECF No. 34.) In his Motion to
Amend, Plaintiff asserted for the first time claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress
and defamation pursuant to the South Carolina Torts Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann §§ 15-78-10, et
seq. (“SCTCA”). (ECF No. 34 at 3.) Plaintiff also sought to add a DSS employee and York
County as defendants to this action, asserting claims against them pursuant to the SCTCA. (Id. at
4.) Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s voluntary withdrawal of his federal claims. (ECF No.
39.)
On October 18, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 40.) The Order denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend because both
Defendant and proposed defendants, a DSS employee and York County, have immunity for
SCTCA claims brought in federal court. (Id. at 2–4.)

The Report recommended granting

Plaintiff’s voluntary request for withdrawal of his FMLA and ADA claims. (Id. at 4.) The Report
reasoned that because no valid claims would remain after the withdrawal of the federal claims,
the entire case should be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains
with the court. Id. at 271. As such, the court is charged with making de novo determinations of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Thus, the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with

2

instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff was apprised of his opportunity to file objections to the Report on October 18,
2018. (ECF No. 40 at 6.) Objections to the Report were due by November 1, 2018. (Id.)
However, objections were due by November 4, 2018, if a party was served by mail or otherwise
allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Id.) Plaintiff’s Objection was filed on
November 5, 2018, which is one day after the deadline. (ECF No. 45.) In his untimely Objection,
Plaintiff requested an extension to re-file his FMLA and ADA claims. (Id. at 2, 8.)
As Plaintiff has expressed his intent to retract his voluntary withdrawal of his FMLA and
ADA claims in light of the Magistrate Judge’s Order, the court rejects the Report’s
recommendation that the court grant Plaintiff’s request to withdraw his FMLA and ADA claims,
rejects the termination of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and rejects the Report’s
recommendation that the entire case be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 34.)
IV. CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court REJECTS
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 40). The court RECOMMITS
the case to the Magistrate Judge to address the still pending FMLA and ADA claims in the
context of Defendant’s now pending Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
November 14, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

3