Crowley v. United Healthcare Services Inc et al
Filing
30
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 26 Report and Recommendations granting 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Brenda Ford. The case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling. Signed by Chief Judge Margaret B Seymour on 6/25/2012. (asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Wendell K. Crowley,
)
) C/A No. 3:11-2730-MBS-PJG
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
United Healthcare Services, Inc.; and
)
Brenda Ford, individually and in her
)
official capacity,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Wendell K. Crowley brought this action against his former employer, Defendant
United Healthcare Services, Inc.; and his former supervisor, Defendant Brenda Ford, alleging that
he was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”); and discriminated against because of his disability
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. 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 Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling.
On November 16, 2011, Defendant Ford filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendant Ford asserted that she is not individually liable to Plaintiff
for his claims under Title VII and the ADA. See Lissau v. S. Food Serv., Inc., 159 F.3d 177 (4th Cir.
1997); Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to Defendant Ford’s motion on December 5, 2011, to which Defendant Ford filed a reply
on December 15, 2011.
On May 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she determined that Fourth Circuit precedent supported Defendant Ford’s
motion. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant Ford’s motion to dismiss
be granted. Plaintiff filed no 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 Ford’s motion to dismiss is
granted.1 The case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Chief United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
June 25, 2012.
1
As the Magistrate Judge noted, the dismissal applies to any separate cause of action under the South
Carolina Human Affairs Laws.
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?