Jackson et al v. Huesca et al

Filing 62

ORDER. The Report and Recommendation 59 of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. The aforementioned motions to dismiss 31 , 50 , 51 are GRANTED, and the Individual Defendan ts are dismissed from this action. Plaintiffs' claim pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs' only surviving claim is their disability discrimination cl aim against Fender Mender, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. This action is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings consistent with this Order. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 01/08/2019. (hada, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Charles A. Jackson and Linda R. Jackson,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Carlos S. Huesca, Jonathon Best, Angeline
R. Huesca, Emilie C. Huesca, and Fender
Mender of Goose Creek, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:17-3071-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On November
27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Baker issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
recommending that Defendants Carlos S. Huesca, Jonathon Best, Angeline R. Huesca,
and Emilie C. Huesca’s (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) Motions to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 31 & 50) be granted, and Defendant Fender Mender of
Goose Creek, LLC’s (“Fender Mender”) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
(ECF No. 51) be granted. (See ECF No. 59.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). 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). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
1

instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objections are made.
Petitioner filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on December 14,
2018. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this Court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, “in the absence of a timely filed
objection, a district court need not conduct a 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Individual Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 31 & 50) and Fender Menders’ Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 51) should be granted.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 59) is adopted and
incorporated herein by reference. The aforementioned motions to dismiss are
GRANTED, and the Individual Defendants are dismissed from this action. Plaintiffs’
claim pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.,
is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ only surviving claim is their disability
discrimination claim against Fender Mender, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. This action is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for
further pretrial proceedings consistent with this Order.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 8, 2019
Greenville, South Carolina

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3