Brooker v. INVISTA S.a`.r.l. LLC

Filing 39

ORDER accepting 30 Report and Recommendation and denying Defendant's 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/14/2018. (mwal)

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

Olden Brooker,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
INVISTA S.à.r.l. LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________________________ )

C/A No.: 3:14-cv-00148-TLW

ORDER

Plaintiff Olden Brooker filed this action against his former employer based on his
termination from employment. ECF Nos. 1, 24. The matter now comes before this Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) filed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V.
Hodges, to whom this case is assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). ECF No. 30. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends denying Defendant INVISTA S.à.r.l. LLC’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s defamation
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Id. Defendant filed objections to the Report on
September 19, 2017. ECF No. 34. This case 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
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the
Report, the objections, and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the Court concludes
that the Defendant’s objections are repetitive and that the allegations in the Complaint are
sufficient to survive the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. At this stage in the litigation, factual development
is appropriate to properly evaluate the validity of Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED
that the Report, ECF No. 30, is ACCEPTED, and the Objections to the Report, ECF No. 34, are
OVERRULED. For the reasons stated in the Report and those stated herein, Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s defamation claim, ECF No. 25, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
February 14, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina