Martin v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 21 Report and Recommendation and granting 16 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint as to defendant South Carolina Department of Mental Health. The court further GRANTS Plaintiff's Request to file a Second Amended Complaint. No later than fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff files a timely Second Amended Complaint, this matter shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 8/29/2017. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Cheryl Martin,

) Civil Action No.: 5:16-cv-02883-JMC
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Mental Health,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________ )
This matter is before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) (ECF No. 21) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Request
to file a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22). On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff Cheryl Martin
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”),
29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., against her former employer, the South Carolina Department of Mental
Health (hereafter “Defendant SCDMH”), in the Court of Common Pleas, County of Orangeburg.
(ECF No. 1-1.) In Plaintiff’s Complaint, she alleges discrimination and retaliation and seeks
compensatory, punitive, and emotional damages and equitable relief. On August 19, 2016,
Defendant SCDMH filed a Notice of Removal of Plaintiff’s Complaint in this court and filed a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (“Motion to Dismiss “) under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), claiming Plaintiff’s ADEA claims were barred by sovereign
immunity. (ECF Nos. 1, 4).
On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a memorandum opposing Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 11), to which
1

Defendant did not object. On September 26, 2016, the court granted this motion. (ECF No. 12.)
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA, but seeks
“equitable relief, including without limitation judgment compelling employment, reinstatement,
or promotion, and any such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.” (ECF No. 13.)
On October 7, 2016, Defendant SCDMH filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF
No. 16.) On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss. (ECF No. 17.)
The court referred the action to Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), for a Report and Recommendation. In the
Report, dated March 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16) and that all claims for monetary and
injunctive relief be dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant SCDMH. (ECF No. 21.) The
Magistrate Judge determined that Eleventh Amendment immunity would apply to bar claims
against state agencies for equitable relief. (Id.)
On March 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 22) to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report (“Objections”), stating that the Report erred in several grounds. Plaintiff states that the
Magistrate Judge recommended that her case be dismissed because Defendant SCDMH was
named in the suit and not as a state officer acting in its official capacity. (ECF No. 22 at 3.) Plaintiff
objects to this finding, but requests that the court allow her to amend the Complaint in order to
remove SCDMH as the named Defendant and replace this Defendant with John H. Magill in his
official capacity as the State Director of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health. (Id.)
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 Court is not bound

2

by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (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).
To the extent this matter is before this court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Defendant
SCDMH be dismissed from this action because state agencies are immune from suits for equitable
relief pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment immunity for ADEA claims.
The court now addresses Plaintiff’s request in her Objections to file a Second Amended
Complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party may amend the party’s
pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party and leave shall be freely
given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Denial of leave to amend should occur
“only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith
on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.” Johnson v. Oroweat Foods
Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986).
On April 7, 2017, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Objections and Request to file a
Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 23.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request is
procedurally improper because Plaintiff did not file a motion seeking leave to amend her Amended
Complaint, nor did she provide a proposed Second Amended Complaint. (Id.) In the interest of
justice and consistent with the liberal standard that applies to motions to amend under Rule
15(a)(2), the court will consider Plaintiff’s request in her Objections to file a Second Amended

3

Complaint to be an appropriate alternative procedure. Once Plaintiff files a Second Amended
Complaint, Defendant is entitled to file a responsive pleading. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
181-82 (1962), citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "should be construed and
administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding."). Furthermore, the court finds no prejudice to Defendant SCDMH in granting
Plaintiff’s request to file a Second Amended Complaint to replace it with John H. Magill in his
official capacity as the State Director of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health during
this period in the proceedings.
Based on the written submissions of the parties, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) that Defendant the South Carolina Department
of Mental Health be dismissed from this action and therefore GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16). The court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request
to file a Second Amended Complaint. No later than fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is
filed, Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff files a timely Second Amended
Complaint, this matter shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent
with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. Michelle Childs
United States District Judge
August 29, 2017
Columbia, SC

4