Smoak v. SI Group, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 22 Report and Recommendation, granting 7 Partial Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 7/19/2018. (asni, )

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

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SI Group, Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 5:17-cv-01848-JMC
ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Shiva v. Hodges’ Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 22), filed on February 13, 2018, recommending the
court dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for wrongful termination in violation of public
policy for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 7); see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6).
The Magistrate Judge’s Report 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, which has no presumptive weight. The 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 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).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 12.)
Neither party filed objections to the Report.

1

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the 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 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error. Therefore,
the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) granting
Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge,
Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action pled is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
July 19, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

2