Woods v. SC Department of Health & Human Services et al
Filing
81
ORDER adopting 77 Report and Recommendation, granting 71 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 5/6/2019. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
CYNTHIA B. WOODS,
Plaintiff
vs.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, MONA
SECHREST, MARSHA BROWN, KIM
BACKMAN, and DR. PETE LIGGETT,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-00834-MGL
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Cynthia B. Woods (Woods) filed this employment action against her former
employer, Defendant South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services (SCDHHS), as well
as SCDHHS employees Defendants Mona Sechrest, Marsha Brown, Kim Backman, and Dr. Pete
Liggett. She is proceeding pro se.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. The Report
was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South
Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on April 18, 2019, but Woods failed to file any
objections. “[I]n the absence of a 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to
object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standards
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of this Court Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 6th day of May, 2019 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Griffin is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2
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?