Farley v. Goodwill Industries of Lower South Carolina Inc et al
Filing
33
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 29 ] of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment [ECF No. 6 ] is DENIED as to Defendant Goodwill and GRANTED as to Defendant Hanzel. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 2/2/2016. (mcot, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Melissa A. Farley,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Goodwill Industries of Lower South
)
Carolina, Inc. and Anne Hanzel,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-02450-RBH-KDW
ORDER
Plaintiff Melissa A. Farley filed this employment action against the two above-named
Defendants—Goodwill Industries of Lower South Carolina, Inc. (“Goodwill”) and Anne Hanzel—in
the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, South Carolina. See ECF No. 1. The lawsuit arose from
Defendants’ alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s employment. Id. Defendants removed the case
to this Court and filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 1
& 6. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.1 See R & R, ECF No. 29. The Magistrate Judge
recommends the Court deny Defendants’ motion as to Goodwill but grant it as to Hanzel. Id. at 2, 28.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
1
The R & R sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards for this case.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court
is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the
absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly,
the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 29] of the Magistrate Judge. It is
therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment [ECF
No. 6] is DENIED as to Defendant Goodwill and GRANTED as to Defendant Hanzel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
February 2, 2016
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
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?