Timmons v. Richland County Sheriffs Department
Filing
104
OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 103 Report and Recommendations; granting 79 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Richland County Sheriff Office. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 1/4/2012. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Jackqulin Timmons,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Richland County Sheriff’s Office,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A NO. 3:09-652-CMC-PJG
OPINION and ORDER
Through this action, Plaintiff Jackqulin Timmons (“Plaintiff”) seeks recovery under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. (“Title VII”), from her
former employer, Defendant Richland County Sheriff’s Office (“Defendant”). Plaintiff asserts a
claim that she was terminated in retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination with the South
Carolina Human Affairs Commission in 2006. On March 31, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for
summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) , D.S.C., and which was filed on November 30, 2011. Dkt. No. 103. The
Report recommends that the court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Id. The parties
were advised of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if they failed to do so. Id. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, which
were due on December 19, 2011.
STANDARD
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a
specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of an objection, the court reviews the Report
and Recommendation 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”) (citation omitted).
CONCLUSION
The court has reviewed the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the court grants Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment and dismisses Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
January 4, 2012
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?