Cronin v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Filing 14

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 13 Report and Recommendations, denying 4 Motion to Dismiss filed by South Carolina Department of Corrections. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 12/7/2011. (asni, )

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

Donna L. Cronin,

)
) C/A No. 3:11-0471-MBS-JRM
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Donna L. Cronin filed the within action in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland
County, South Carolina, alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliated
against while employed with Defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections. She brings
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims for wrongful
discharge and negligent supervision. Defendant removed the action to this court on February 28,
2011. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey for pretrial handling.
On March 7, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
asserting that the complaint lacks sufficient factual matter to establish jurisdiction or to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). On
November 4, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he
thoroughly reviewed the allegations of the complaint and concluded that Plaintiff adequately had
pleaded her claims for relief. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s

motion be denied. No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.

The court adopts the Report and

Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No.
4) is denied. The action is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
December 7, 2011.

2