Hollington v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company et al

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 27), and the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22). Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/7/2025. (agaz, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Franchetta Hollington,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company; )
and Reeves Skeen, individually,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-1306-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Franchetta Hollington’s (“Plaintiff”)
complaint alleging claims for violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206, et seq., and
employment discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On October 30, 2024,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1981 claim for discriminatory failure to
promote, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 22.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter
was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.
On February 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ motion.
(ECF No. 27.) Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file
written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date,
no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court

is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, no objections have been filed, and the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 27),
and the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 6, 2025
Charleston, South Carolina

2