Coleman v. Centerra Group, LLC
ORDER adopting the 27 Report and Recommendation, granting 20 Plaintiff's motion to amend, and granting in part and denying in part 18 Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Specifically, the Court g rants Defendant's motion as to Plaintiff's first and second causes of action for gender and race-based disparate treatment, and denies Defendant's motion as to Plaintiff's third cause of action for retaliation. The Court recommits this case to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 10/18/2017. (bgoo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Centerra Group, LLC,
Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00970-RBH-PJG
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See ECF No. 27. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
(1) grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend and (2) grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The
Objections were due by October 11, 2017. See ECF No. 27.
Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 27]. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend [ECF No. 20] and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES
IN PART Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 18]. Specifically, the Court
grants Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action for gender and race-based
disparate treatment, and denies Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for retaliation.
The Court RECOMMITS this case to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
October 18, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
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?