Studley v. Studemeyer et al
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 11 Report and Recommendation and dismissing this action without prejudice and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/16/2016. (asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Gregory Studemeyer; Law Office of
Civil Action No.: 3:16-cv-00387-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Patrick Studley (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging claims
of workplace sexual harassment and discrimination on behalf of his wife and sister. Plaintiff files
this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants created a
sexually charged work environment which led to the dissolution of Plaintiff’s marriage with his
wife. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants should be held responsible for
sexual harassment for inappropriate comments that Defendant Studemeyer made to Plaintiff’s
wife. (ECF No. 1 at 3). Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in workplace
discrimination when they refused to hire Plaintiff’s sister based on her looks. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $45,000.00 and punitive damages. (ECF
No. 1 at 5).
This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the
court to dismiss civil actions filed in forma pauperis if they are frivolous or fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02, D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige Gossett for a Report
On April 15, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) recommending the court dismiss the petition without prejudice and
without service of process because to the extent that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim, Plaintiff
does not have standing to bring the claim on behalf of his wife and sister. (ECF No. 11). The
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
recommendation to this court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a
The recommendation has no presumptive weight.
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Matthews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Objections to a Report and Recommendation must
specifically identify portions of the Report and the basis for those objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
“[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report.1 (ECF No. 11 at 7).
Plaintiff was required to file objections by May 2, 2016. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any
The Magistrate Judge’s Report was mailed to Plaintiff on April 15, 2016 (ECF No. 12), but was
returned to the court as undeliverable (ECF No. 13).
objections to the report. Accordingly, this court has reviewed the Report of the Magistrate Judge
and does not find clear error.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11).
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action
(ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
May 16, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
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?