Bailey v. SC Department of Corrections

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 21 , is ACCEPTED, and Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6 , is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Title VII for failure-to-promote and the EPA for discriminatory pay are dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 5/9/2018. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Harriet G. Bailey,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No. 3:17-cv-3500-TLW-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff Harriet G. Bailey filed this action for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, as amended; and the Equal Pay Act (EPA), 29 U.S.C. § 206. ECF
No. 1. On January 12, 2018, Defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections filed a Partial
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF
No. 6. Plaintiff filed a response opposing the motion, ECF No. 9, to which Defendant replied, ECF
No. 11.
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(the Report) filed on February 23, 2018, by United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, to
whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civ. Rule
73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant’s
Partial Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 21. Objections to the Report were due on March 9, 2018.
However, the parties did not file objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
This 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 the absence of objections to the Report, this Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report, filings, and relevant case law. The Report
provides a detailed analysis of the issues. This Court finds the Report persuasive on the facts and
law. Again, neither party filed objections to the Report. The Court adopts the detailed analysis in
the Report regarding Plaintiff’s Title VII failure-to-promote claim and EPA discriminatory pay
claim based on Plaintiff’s failure to object to the factual and legal basis outlined by the Magistrate
Judge. ECF No. 21; see Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 252 (4th Cir. 1999); 5A Charles Allen
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 360–67.
For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge and those stated herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 21, is
ACCEPTED, and Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Title VII for failure-to-promote and the EPA for discriminatory pay
are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Terry L. Wooten____________
Chief United States District Judge
May 9, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina