Doby-Johnson v. Nash et al

Filing 28

ORDER adopting 26 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court denies GE's 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/27/14. (kmca)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Tenisha Doby-Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Ralph Nash, Venture Aerobearings, LLC, Charlie Alloco, Ron Hambrick, Serge Couture, and General Electric Company, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2: 13-cv-3253-RMG c:::» "" ) ~ ~ ORDER 'J j =.1 :" ') ,: '~ .,' I -=- 3: ::z::::0 N ....J -, , ) » -Ii> ...0 ::0 rt1 (") ~ <: rt1 CJ (") r- rt1 ::0 ;::s;: u; 0 ..., .." n ,." This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Magistrate Judge recommending that this Court deny Defendant General Electric Company's ("GE") motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 26). For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with and adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. Background Plaintiff filed this action in state court alleging discrimination in her employment. (Dkt. No.1-I). Defendants then removed the action to this Court. (Dkt. No.1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g), this matter was automatically referred a Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings. GE then filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) contesting Plaintiffs ability to pierce its corporate veil. (Dkt. No. 10). Plaintiff then filed a response in opposition to the motion. (Dkt. No. 17). The Magistrate Judge then issued the present R&R recommending the motion be denied. (Dkt. No. 26). Neither party filed timely objections to the R&R. Legal Standard The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id. Discussion After review of the R&R and finding no clear error on the face of the record, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case and therefore agrees with and adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005). Conclusion As set forth above, the Court agrees with and adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 26). Accordingly, the Court denies GE's motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 10). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge MarchL -, ,2014 Charleston, South Carolina 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?