Rosier v. TargetX
Filing
24
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 21 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 13 Partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/16/2018.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Michael K. Rosier,
Plaintiff,
V.
TargetX; TargetX.com;
TargetX.com Incorporated;
TargetX.com, L.L.C. ; TargetX.comm;
Defendants.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-1306
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (" R. & R.") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 21) recommending that the Court Grant Defendants ' Partial Motion
to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 13). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R. & R. as the
order of the Court.
I.
Background and Relevant Facts
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this employment action on July 26, 2017 with
three causes of action containing five distinct claims. (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff's First Cause of
Action is a discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42
U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (Dkt. No. 7
i!il
15-18.) Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action is a
retaliation claim under the ADA. (Dkt. No. 7
i!il
19-26.) Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action
contains the following three claims: violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
violation of the South Carolina Human Affairs Law ("SCHAL"), and a state law claim for
wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Dkt. No. 7
-1-
i!il
27-31.) Defendant
TargetX.com, L.L.C. has moved to dismiss (1) the retaliation claim under the ADA; (2) the Title
VII claim; (3) the SCHAL claim; and (4) the claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public
policy. (Dkt. No. 13.)
II.
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 , 270- 71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de nova determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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)(l).
In the absence of any specific objections to the R. & R., "a district court need not
conduct a de nova 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." See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted).
III.
Discussion
First, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the ADA because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claim
under the ADA 's retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 . (Dkt. No . 21 at 7.) Second, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
Title VII claim because Plaintiff has failed to allege a cognizable claim or to exhaust any claim
under Title VII. (Id. at 8.) Third, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SCHAL claim because Plaintiff has not filed a
complaint with the SHAC as required under the the SCHAL. (Id. at 10.) Finally, the Magistrate
-2-
Judge recommends that this Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs wrongful
discharge claim because Plaintiff abandoned the claim by failing to respond to Defendants'
arguments in their motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, the claim is barred because an
existing statutory remedy exists for Plaintiffs state law wrongful discharge claim. (Id. at 11.)
No party has filed Objections to the R. & R., and the deadline to file Objections (April
11, 2018) has passed. In the absence of any specific objections to the R. & R., "a district court
need not conduct a de nova 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." See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). The Court
has considered each of the four claims that Defendants have moved to dismiss and determined
that the Magistrate Judge has correctly applied the controlling law to the facts relevant to each
claim.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 21) as the order of
the Court. Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
Iv
April
,2018
Charleston, 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?