Jackson v. Walmart Loss Prevention Employees et al

Filing 26

ORDER adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. Signed by the Honorable Richard M Gergel on 7/3/2014. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCTCOljRt,'FOR THE DISTRlCT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

)

Tonya Marie Jackson,

IDI~

r\'·'~,

""1

,,~

JUL - 3 P 2: 28

CIA No.: 4: 14-1285-RMG-KDW

)
)

Plaintiff,

)

ORDER

)
)

vs.

)
)
)
)

Walmart Loss Prevention Employees,
Hartsville, South Carolina Store #1135, and
Walmart Stores, Inc,

)
Defendants.

)

------------------------------)
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint without
prejudice. (Dkt. No. 16). For the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R & R as the
order of the Court and DISMISSES this action.
Background
Plaintiff, Tonya Marie Jackson, alleges that when she shops at her local Walmart Store in
Hartsville, South Carolina, she is harassed, stalked, and under the surveillance of a lossprevention employee. (Dkt. No. 1 at 4). As a result, Plaintiff asserts that this employee
interferes with her "Civil Rights" and violates her "Federally Protected Activities." (ld.).
However, the Plaintiff does not assert that any particular statute or constitutional provision has
been violated. (See Dkt. No. 1.). Plaintiff further asserts that she has been personally injured as a
result of the employee's actions and is asking for compensatory and punitive damages in the

1

amount of$1 million. (Id. at 4-5). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing this action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 16). Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

Legal Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final detennination remains with
this Court. Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de novo detennination ofthose portions of the R & R to which specific objection is
made. Here, however, because no objection has been made, this Court "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 & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R &
R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,200 (4th Cir. 1983).

Discussion
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the claims against Defendants Walmart
Loss Prevention Employees, Hartsville, South Carolina Store # 113 5 and Walmart Stores, Inc.
should be dismissed. Plaintiff does not allege any federal constitutional or statutory violations
that would potentially comprise plausible claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1981, or § 2000a,
and for the reasons stated in the R & R, Plaintiff's allegations do not otherwise fall within the
scope of federal question jurisdiction. Because both Plaintiff and one of the Defendants are
residents of South Carolina, diversity jurisdiction does not exist.

2

Conclusion

Therefore, the District Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R, (Dkt. No. 16), as
the order of the Court. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
July ~,2014
Charleston, South Carolina

3