Stockton v. Shaw Industries Group Inc

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendant's motion to dismiss, this action is dismissed without prejudice. The court hereby grants plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 15 days, for 12 Report and Recommendation, 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Shaw Industries Group Inc, ( Specific Document due by 2/17/2015.) Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on February 2, 2015. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
LAURA C. STOCKTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC.,
)
d/b/a SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC.
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:14-1904-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Laura C. Stockton filed this civil action against her former employer, Defendant
Shaw Industries Group, Inc., alleging disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. #1). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim on May 20, 2014. (Doc. #5). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition
on June 20, 2014 (Doc. #9), to which Defendant replied on June 30, 2014 (Doc. #11).
This matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was
assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the
Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss
and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. (Doc. #12). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the
Report on December 18, 2014 (Doc. #15), and Defendant replied on January 8, 2015 (Doc. #16).
This matter is now ripe for disposition.
In conducting its review of the Report, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the

recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of
the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections thereto in
accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes
the case and the applicable law. It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #12), and Plaintiff’s objections thereto are
OVERRULED (Doc. #15). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
In her opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and her objections to the Report,
Plaintiff requests that the Court permit her to file an amended pleading with 15 days of entry of
this Order. (Doc. #9 at 5; Doc. #15 at 3). Pursuant to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’
holding in Ostrezenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 252-53 (4th Cir. 1999), the Court hereby
GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 15 days of entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
February 2, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina