Williamson v. Country Inn & Suites et al

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's federal claims arising under both Title VII and the ADEA are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's state law clai m is dismissed without prejudice, for 41 Report and Recommendation, granting 30 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Mookie Patel, Bansi Patel, Alyssa Mackey. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on December 12, 2013. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Bethina M. Williamson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Bansi Patel; Mookie Patel;
and Alyssa Mackey,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:13-00279-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff, Bethina M. Williamson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se filed this employment
discrimination action against Defendants, Bansi Patel, Mookie Patel, and Alyssa Mackey
(collectively “Defendants”), on January 30, 2013. (Doc. #1).1 Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant
to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. (“ADEA”), in addition to a
state law defamation claim, arising out of her allegations that “younger, white employees” were
treated better than she during her employment and that, following Plaintiff’s termination, one of
the Defendants informed a prospective employer that Plaintiff was not eligible for rehire with her
former employer, Country Inn and Suites. (Doc. #1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued on October 23, 2013 by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to
whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). (Doc. #41). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
1

Plaintiff’s Complaint originally included claims against her former employer, Country Inn and Suites,
but she withdrew those claims on June 19, 2013 (Doc. #21); therefore, Country Inn and Suites is no
longer a Defendant in the above-captioned case.

recommends that the District Court grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #30) and
dismiss this case in its entirety. (See Doc. #41).
The Plaintiff did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation recommending dismissal of the above-captioned case.

The deadline for

Plaintiff to file objections expired on November 12, 2013. (See Doc. #41).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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 Report and Recommendation 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).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
and other relevant filings in this matter. After careful consideration, it is ORDERED that the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. #41) be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. #30) is hereby GRANTED and the above-captioned case is DISMISSED in its
entirety.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
December 12, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
2

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #41) addressed the legal merit of the Plaintiff’s federal claims
arising under both Title VII and the ADEA. Therefore, those claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #41) recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claim on a
procedural ground. Accordingly, that claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

2