Daniels v. ASCO Numatics
Filing
20
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 14 Report and Recommendation; granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/10/2016. (asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Cynthia J. Daniels,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ASCO Numatics,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-04371-JMC
ORDER
Plaintiff Cynthia J. Daniels (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against her employer Defendant
ASCO Numatics (“Defendant”) alleging that she was subjected to (1) discrimination because of
her race and religion, (2) a hostile work environment, and (3) lower pay and benefits than her
white co-workers–all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206, and South Carolina
Human Affairs Law, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-13-10 to -110 (2015). (ECF No. 1.)
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff did not file opposition or otherwise respond to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g)
(D.S.C.), the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial
handling. On March 23, 2016, the Magistrate Judge specifically warned Plaintiff “that if she
fails to respond, this action may be decided on the record presented in support of the defendant’s
motion, . . . or may be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.” (ECF
No. 11 at 1 (citing Local Civ. Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.); Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir.
1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).) Thereafter, on April 6, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a
1
Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the court grant Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 14.)
A magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court reviews de novo only those
portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which specific objections are
filed, and reviews those portions which are not objected to - including those portions to which
only “general and conclusory” objections have been made - for clear error. Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th
Cir. 1983); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of a magistrate judge or recommit the matter
with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of her right to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the date of service or by April 25, 2016 (ECF No.
14 at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)).) Plaintiff did not file objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to a report and
recommendation, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but
instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005). After carefully reviewing the record and the applicable law, the court finds no
clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings. Accordingly, Defendant’s Rule
2
12(b)(6) Motion should be granted as to Plaintiff's claims.
For the reasons set forth above, the court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss of
Defendant ASCO Numatics pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 6.)
The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) and
incorporates it herein by reference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
June 10, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
3
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?