Brooks v. Richland County School District One
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 29 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge's order. Signed by the Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 05/14/2013. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
C/A No.: 3:12-3569-JFA
Richland County School District One,
Plaintiff Marie Brooks brings the above-captioned case against her former employer,
Richland County School District One. In her complaint, Brooks asserts claims for breach of
contract, race and age discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and violations of South Carolina’s Payment of Wages Act, S.C. CODE
ANN. 41-10-10 to -110.
This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation1
that the court dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply
with the Magistrate Judge’s Order to Show Cause dated March 19, 2013. See ECF Nos. 13, 29.
The Report and Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
Brooks was advised of her right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation,
which was mailed to Brooks on April 8, 2013. However, Brooks did not file any objections. In
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight,
and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and
Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately
summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein
by reference in its entirety.
Accordingly, the court dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of prosecution and
failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 14, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?