Fields v. Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC

Filing 20

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 17 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Matthew J Perry, Jr on 4/12/2011.(ydav, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
SHARON FIELDS,

]
Plaintiff,
]

-vs-

CA NO: 3:10-02136
]
ORDER
]

COLTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.
]
Defendant.
________________________________

]

This is a employment discrimination case filed by the plaintiff, Sharon Fields, on
August 16, 2010. The plaintiff alleges a claim for retaliation in violation of pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S. C. §§ 20003 et. seq. and the Age Discrimination
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et. seq. The plaintiff asserts that she was terminated by
the defendant in retaliation for her protected activity in complaining of harassment and
discrimination because she was an older black female employee and had planned to file a
charge with the EEOC. She seeks inter alia injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.
The defendant has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Proceeding asking the Court to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The matter is now
before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge recommending denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
As to his findings on dispositive matters, the Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
-1-

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
those portions of the Recommendation to which specific objection is made.
Here, plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Nonetheless, this Court has made a de novo review of the record before it.
Upon careful consideration, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is approved. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/MATTHEW J. PERRY, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
April 12. 2011.

-2-