Peay v. Wachovia Bank NA
Filing
32
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 28 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action without prejudice, terminating as moot 14 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 12/13/2012. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Stephanie E. Peay,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Wachovia Bank, N.A., a/k/a Wells Fargo
)
Bank, N.A.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
C.A. No. 3:12-2009-CMC-PJG
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
entered on November 21, 2012. Dkt. No. 28. For the reasons set forth below, the Report is adopted
and this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice. The court also terminates Defendant’s
motion to dismiss as moot.
STANDARD
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is
made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court
reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
DISCUSSION
Through this action, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks
damages for alleged chronic health issues caused by environmental problems in her workplace. The
Report recommends that the matter be dismissed because it is barred by the exclusive remedy
provided under the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”). As explained in the
Report, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to suggest that any of the exceptions to the exclusivity
provisions of the Act would apply.
Plaintiff was advised of her right to object to this recommendation. She did not file any
objection despite passage of the time allowed for doing so. The court has, therefore, reviewed the
Report for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts the Report in full.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and this action
is dismissed without prejudice. The court also terminates Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
December 13, 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?