Kramer v. Omnicare Esc LLC

Filing 27

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 20 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on March 12, 2015.(tlim, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
EDWARD M. KRAMER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
OMNICARE ESC, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 2:14-cv-3546-PMD-BM
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 20), recommending that this Court grant Defendant Omnicare ESC,
LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17).

Plaintiff Edward M. Kramer

(“Plaintiff”) subsequently filed a two-sentence Objection to the R&R (ECF No. 22),
accompanied by a proposed amended complaint (ECF No. 22-1). Having reviewed the entire
record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the relevant
facts and applied the correct principles of law. Accordingly, because the Court has not discerned
any error—clear or otherwise—in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, the Court hereby adopts the
R&R and dismisses this action.

Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff’s Objection may be

construed as a motion to amend his Complaint, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for the
reasons set forth herein.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this Court on dispositive matters
heard pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). Parties are allowed to make a written

objection to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days
after being served a copy of the recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of a recommendation to
which a specific objection is registered, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Additionally, the Court may receive additional evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions. Id. A party’s failure to object is accepted as an agreement with the
conclusions of the magistrate judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). In the absence of
a timely filed, specific objection—or as to those portions of magistrate judge’s recommendation
to which no specific objection is made—this Court “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the recommendation, this
Court need not provide any explanation for adopting the magistrate judge’s analysis and
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
DISCUSSION
On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued the instant R&R recommending that
this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. In response to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R,
Plaintiff filed a two-sentence “Objection,” which Plaintiff’s counsel apparently refers to as a
“cover letter.” (Email, Jan. 21, 2015, ECF No. 26-1, at 2). In fact, only the first sentence of
Plaintiff’s Objection references the R&R, with Plaintiff stating, in relevant part, as follows:
“Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation . . . to dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint.” (Pl.’s Objection 1). As noted above, such an objection lacks the requisite specificity

2

under Rule 72(b) to trigger, or otherwise invite, de novo review. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315–
16. Accordingly, the Court, which has “satisf[ied] itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record,” id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee note) (internal quotation marks
omitted), accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and well-reasoned R&R.
In the second sentence of his Objection, Plaintiff requests leave to file a proposed
amended complaint. Assuming, arguendo, Plaintiff’s Objection may be construed as a motion to
amend his Complaint, the Court will analyze this request under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Where a party seeks to amend his complaint more than twenty-one days after
service of a responsive pleading, Rule 15(a)(2) permits amendment only with the defendant’s
written consent or the court’s leave. Although Rule 15(a)’s permissive standard provides that
such leave should be freely given by the court “when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2), “[a] district court may deny a motion to amend when the amendment would be
prejudicial to the opposing party, the moving party has acted in bad faith, or the amendment
would be futile,” Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010).
However, “after the deadlines provided by a scheduling order have passed, [Rule 16’s] good
cause standard must be satisfied to justify leave to amend the pleadings.” Nourison Rug Corp. v.
Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008). In the present case, Plaintiff has not filed a motion
to amend his Complaint and his wholly deficient Objection fails to address or satisfy Rule 16’s
good cause standard.

Accordingly, for these reasons and others, the Court concludes that

granting Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint is neither warranted nor
appropriate under the circumstances of this case. See Equal Rights Ctr., 602 F.3d at 603 (noting
that the grant or denial of a motion to amend a complaint is committed to the sound discretion of
the trial court).

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.

To the extent

Plaintiff’s Objection may be construed as a motion to amend his Complaint, Plaintiff’s request is
DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 12, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

4