Stockton v. Shaw Industries Group Inc

Filing 39

ORDER ACCEPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denies 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Shaw Industries Group Inc. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/3/2015. (gmil)

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.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:14-cv-01904-TLW-PJG

ORDER
Plaintiff, Laura C. Stockton (“Plaintiff”), filed this employment discrimination action
against her former employer, Shaw Industries Group Inc. d/b/a Shaw Industries Inc.
(“Defendant”), pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.
(“ADA”) in the Court of Common Pleas for Lexington County, South Carolina. (Doc. #1-1). On
May 13, 2014, Defendant removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and
1446, asserting jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. #1).
Following careful review of an initial Report and Recommendation (Doc. #17) in this
matter, this Court entered an Order on February 2, 2015 granting Defendant’s first motion to
dismiss and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. #17). An Amended
Complaint was filed by Plaintiff on February 17, 2015. (Doc. #18). Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on March 6, 2015. (Doc. #21).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the instant Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) issued on September 16, 2015 by United States Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). (Doc. #27). In the Report, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that this Court deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint. (See Doc. #27). Defendant filed objections to the Report on October 5, 2015 (Doc.
#30), to which Plaintiff replied on October 22, 2015 (Doc. #34). This matter is now ripe for
disposition.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In conducting its review of the Report, the Court therefore 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).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the relevant
filings, the Report and Recommendation, and Defendant’s objections, and concludes that the
Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, after
careful consideration of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc.
#27). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint is DENIED. (Doc. #21).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
December 3, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
2