Code v. Allen University
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 18 Report and Recommendations, granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Dismissal is, however, without prejudice and Code shall be allowed fifteen days from entry of this order to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted in the Report. (Amended Complaint due by 4/18/2012) Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/3/2012. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
BARBARA CODE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALLEN UNIVERSITY,
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________________ )
C/A No. 3:11-2935-CMC-SHV
OPINION AND ORDER
Through this action, Plaintiff, Barbara Code (“Code”), seeks recovery from her former
employer, Allen University, (“Allen”), for alleged sex, race, and national-origin discrimination and
harassment. Code also alleges retaliation for reporting or complaining about the discrimination and
harassment. All of her claims are asserted under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (Title VII).
The matter is before the court on Allen’s motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below,
this motion is granted and the action is dismissed for failure to satisfy the relevant pleading
standards. Dismissal is without prejudice and Code shall be allowed fifteen days from entry of this
order to file an amended complaint.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), (g), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On March 5, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that Allen’s motion to dismiss be granted but that the dismissal be without
prejudice. Dkt. No. 18.
The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Code filed a timely
objection on March 29, 2012, objecting to the extent the Report recommended dismissal but
agreeing that any dismissal should be without prejudice. Dkt. No. 22.
STANDARD
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making 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).
DISCUSSION
For reasons fully explained in the Report, Code’s allegations fail to satisfy the relevant
pleading standards because she fails to allege sufficient facts to give rise to reasonable inferences
of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. In her objection, Code argues that her allegations are
sufficient because they “are not threadbare recitals of elements or baseless conclusions.”
The court disagrees. While Code has included some factual allegations they are, for reasons
explained in the Report, insufficient to give rise to factual inferences sufficient to support any of her
claims.
2
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court adopts and incorporates the Report. The court
grants Allen’s motion to dismiss. Dismissal is, however, without prejudice and Code shall be
allowed fifteen days from entry of this order to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies
noted in the Report. In the event Code files an amended complaint within the period allowed, the
matter will automatically be remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
April 3, 2012
3
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?