Jenkins v. South Carolina Human Affairs Commission
ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 28 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, 44 Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's claims pursuant to § 1983 are DISMISSED and the remaining state law claims are REMANDED to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on September 8, 2017. **Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court.** (kbos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr.,
South Carolina Human Affairs Commission,
C/A No.: 3:16-3255-TLW
Plaintiff Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this action in the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas alleging that Defendant South Carolina Human Affairs
Commission aided Amazon’s discrimination and retaliation against him. ECF No. 1. Defendant
removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on September 28, 2016. Id. This
matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”)
filed on January 18, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case
was previously assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
(D.S.C.). ECF No. 44. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant
Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the § 1983 claim and decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over any state law claim and remand the case to the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas. Id. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. ECF Nos. 48, 49, 52, 53, 54. This
matter is now ripe for disposition.
The 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, 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
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s filings offer no factual or legal objections
to the Report. See ECF Nos. 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54. After careful consideration, IT IS ORDERED
that the Magistrate Judge’s Report, ECF No. 44, is ACCEPTED, and the Plaintiff’s Objections,
ECF Nos. 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s claims for Constitutional violations
pursuant to § 1983 are DISMISSED. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Court declines to
exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Therefore, the remaining causes of action
are REMANDED to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas for resolution of this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten____________
Chief United States District Judge
September 8, 2017
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?