Davis v. State of South Carolina Department of Insurance

Filing 29

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 27 ), and Defendant's objections thereto are OVERRULED (Doc. # 28 ). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant's first motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. # 9 ). Defendant's motion to dismiss the EPA claim is DENIED. (Doc. # 15 ). Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 4/29/2015. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
ANGELA DAVIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:14-cv-03822-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Angela Davis filed this action against Defendant State of South Carolina
Department of Insurance on September 30, 2014, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., the South Carolina Human Affairs Law
(“SCHAL”), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-13-10, et seq., and the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 206(d). (Doc. #1). On December 12, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action
except insofar as it alleged a violation of the EPA. (Doc. #9). Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition on January 5, 2015 (Doc. #16), to which Defendant replied on January 16 (Doc. #20).
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s EPA claim on December 31, 2014. (Doc. #15).
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on January 20, 2015 (Doc. #21), and Defendant replied on
January 27 (Doc. #23).
This matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case was
assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(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 first motion to

dismiss but deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss the EPA claim. (Doc. #27). Defendant filed
timely objections to the Report on April 16, 2015. (Doc. #28). Plaintiff filed no objections, and
the motions to dismiss are now ripe for disposition.
In conducting this review, 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 Defendant’s objections thereto in
accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes
the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #27), and Defendant’s objections thereto are
OVERRULED (Doc. #28). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant’s
first motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. #9). Defendant’s motion to dismiss the EPA claim
is DENIED. (Doc. #15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
April 29, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina