Eaves v. Loris HealthCare Systems

Filing 42

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court adopts the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 25 is granted and Plaintiffs claim for wrongful discharge is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/08/2010. (dsto, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Tammy Holden Eaves, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) Loris Community Hospital District ) d/b/a Loris Healthcare System ) ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) C.A. No. 4:09-cv-01680-JMC ORDER Plaintiff Tammy Holden Eaves filed this action against Defendant Loris Community Hospital District alleging several causes of action for various violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seq. and a state law cause of action for wrongful discharge. Defendant made a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Entry # 25) as to Plaintiff's fourth cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Entry #38], filed on September 17, 2010, recommended that Defendant's motion be granted because Plaintiff abandoned her claim for wrongful discharge in her Response to Defendant's motion [Entry #26]. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's recommendation without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) 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 1 responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Plaintiff was advised of her right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Entry #38, Attachment 1]. Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the district court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and 2 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Entry # 25] is granted and Plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/J. Michelle Childs United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina October 8, 2010 3

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?