Hatcher v. Shulkin

Filing 23

ORDER adopting the 18 Report and Recommendation and granting the Defendant's 9 Motion to Dismiss the first two causes of action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Donald C. Coggins, Jr. on 2/20/2018. (bgoo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Donald R. Hatcher, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
David J. Shulkin,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No. 3:17-cv-2535-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging violations Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. §§12101, et seq. ECF No. 1. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s first and
second causes of action. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff filed a Response in which he agreed that these claims
should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, ECF No. 11, and Defendant
filed a Reply, ECF No. 12. This Motion is now ripe for resolution.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 25, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in light of the agreement of the parties
that these two claims should be dismissed. ECF No. 18. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of
the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if
he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed.
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.

See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See U.S.C.
§ 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in
the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation that the Motion
to Dismiss the first two causes of action be granted without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court
adopts the Report by reference in this Order. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [9] is granted without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
February 20, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina