Johnson et al v. Flakeboard America Limited

Filing 79

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report 63 . Defendant's Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Allegations 35 is DENIED at this stage in the litigation. Defendant 's prior filing of the same name 6 is terminated as MOOT. Finally, Defendant's Motion for Leave to File additional materials 73 is GRANTED to the extent of the briefing attached to that motion. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 6/15/2012. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Julia Johnson, James Allen Sanders,
Paul Seabury, Matthew Sinclair,
Cathy Williams, Kendricks Douglas,
Tammy McCall and Barry Alford,
Individually and on behalf of the class they
seek to represent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Flakeboard America Limited,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 4:11-2607-TLW-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiffs instituted this putative class action against Defendant on September 27, 2011
and filed the operative Amended Complaint on November 14, 2011. (Docs. # 1 and # 29).
Plaintiffs assert claims of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended. Id.
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Athe Report@) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, III, to whom this case
had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s
Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Allegations be denied. (Doc. # 63). Defendant
filed objections to the Report to which Plaintiffs replied. (Docs. # 64 and # 66). In conducting
its review, the Court therefore 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 reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the Defendant’s objections. The Court has undertaken a careful review of the case law cited
in the Report and the objections, in particular the recent United States Supreme Court case of
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2451 (2011). The Court has also reviewed the
briefing attached to Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File additional material in support of its
objections (Doc. # 73) as well as the Plaintiffs’ response to that filing. (Doc. # 76). Having
reviewed the Magistrate’s Report as well as the objections thereto and the other filings cited
above, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 63). Defendant’s Motion to Strike
and/or Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Allegations is DENIED at this stage in the litigation. (Doc. #
35). Defendant’s prior filing of the same name is terminated as MOOT. (Doc. # 6). Finally,
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File additional materials is GRANTED to the extent of the
briefing attached to that motion. (Doc. #73).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten____
United States District Judge

June 15, 2012
Florence, South Carolina