Estes v. Westminster Company

Filing 50

ORDER adopting 44 Report and Recommendations and incorporates it herein by reference. The within action is dismissed with prejudice. The court adopts the terms of the settlement agreement as the order of the court. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 12/30/08.(erav, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Jennifer Estes, Plaintiff, vs. Westminster Company, ) ) C/A No. 2:07-4085-MBS ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) D e fe n d a n t . ) ____________________________________) P la in tiff Jennifer Estes filed the within complaint on December 19, 2007, as amended on A p r il 1, 2008, alleging, among other things, that she was sexually harassed in violation of the Federal F a i r Housing Laws, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 7 3 .0 2 , D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr for pretrial h a n d lin g. This matter currently is before the court on motion to enforce settlement filed by Defendant W e s tm in s t e r Company on November 18, 2008. The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on December 3 , 2008. It appears that he was informed by Plaintiff's counsel that Plaintiff had accepted a s e ttle m e n t offer by Defendant in the fall of 2008. However, Plaintiff failed to execute the settlement d o c u m e n t s prepared by Defendant's counsel and agreed to by counsel for Plaintiff. Plaintiff's c o u n se l represented to the Magistrate Judge that he had not heard from Plaintiff since October 2008. It further appears that Plaintiff did not dispute these facts, other than to inform the Magistrate Judge th a t she had sent Plaintiff's counsel an email indicating that she would not sign the settlement a gre e m e n t. Plaintiff's counsel denied receiving such an email. Plaintiff's counsel represented to the M a gis tra te Judge that he believed the settlement was fair. Based on these facts developed at the h e a rin g, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on December 8, 2008, that the c o u rt enter an order dismissing the action and adopting the terms of the settlement (Entry 44). The s e t t l e m e n t agreement and release is filed as an attachment to the Report and Recommendation (Entry 4 5 ). Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. T h e Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e r m i n a t io n of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is m a d e . The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the M a gis tra te Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to give any e x p l a n a t i o n for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). T h e court has carefully reviewed the record. The court adopts the Report and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n and incorporates it herein by reference. The within action is dismissed with p r e j u d i c e . The court adopts the terms of the settlement agreement as the order of the court. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina December 30, 2008 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?