Stroman v. Hanna et al

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Adopting 11 Report and Recommendation allowing for the complaint to be amended. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in compliance with the Report, the Clerk is directed to return this action back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 10/14/16. (mflo, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Kim Stroman, C/A No. 3:16-02643-JFA Plaintiff, vs. Dwight Hanna, Beth Dill, and Tammy O’Berry, ORDER Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION Kim Stroman (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq., alleging discrimination based on her race, sex, and age. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Dwight Hanna, Beth Dill, and Tammy O’Berry. ECF No. 1. In addition, Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF No. 3, which was granted on August 31, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, ECF No. 10. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court summarily dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, unless Plaintiff filed an amended 1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). 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). 1 complaint within fourteen days of the order. ECF No. 11. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.2 Plaintiff was advised of her right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on August 31, 2016. Id. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff until September 19, 2016, to file objections. Id. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report; however, on September 14, 2016, Plaintiff did file an amended complaint appearing to rectify the issue existing in her original complaint. ECF No. 14. Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review. III. DISCUSSION 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Although Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, she did file an amended complaint to correct her failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted within the fourteen days allotted by the Magistrate Judge in her Report. ECF Nos. 11, 14. The Report stated that individuals could not be held liable under Title VII and the ADEA. ECF No. 11, p. 3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint removes the individuals previously listed as defendants and replaces them with the Richland County Government—her employer. ECF No. 14. Therefore, 2 The Court makes a small change to account for a possible scrivener’s error on page 1 of the Report wherein the assigned electronic court filing (ECF) docket entry number for the complaint should be ECF 1 or 1-1, instead of 4-5. 2 Plaintiff has fulfilled the alternative provided for in the Report and her case should not be summarily dismissed. IV. CONCLUSION After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 11, allowing for the complaint to be amended. Because Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in compliance with the Report, the Clerk is directed to return this action back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 14, 2016 Columbia, South Carolina Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge 3

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?