Cetina v. Michelin North America et al

Filing 246

ORDER adopting 238 Report and Recommendations; granting 187 Motion to Dismiss; granting 215 Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings;denying 245 Motion to Stay. This case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling in regard to the soleremaining unserved defendant, Dave Brown. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/11/2013.(gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Tanya Lynn Cetina,
Plaintiff,
v.
Newbold Services, Clint Morgan,
Dave Murphy and Dave Brown,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 6:12-2222-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging discrimination by the Defendants. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC, all pre-trial proceedings in
this matter were referred to a magistrate judge. This case is now before the court on the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) addressing two motions: (1)
Defendant David T. Brown’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 187) and (2) Defendants Newbold
Services, Clint Morgan, and Dave Murphy’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 215). The
Report recommends granting both motions.1
Plaintiff was advised of her right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 238-1).
However, Plaintiff did not file any objections and the time within which to file objections has
expired. In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the magistrate judge’s 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
1

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation 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).

F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Report (ECF No. 238) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that David T.
Brown’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 187), and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants Newbold Services, Clint Morgan, and Dave Murphy (ECF No. 215) are GRANTED,
and the claims against these Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Furthermore, the
Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state causes of action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and such claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Additionally, Defendants Newbold Services, Clint Morgan, and Dave Murphy’s Motion to
Stay the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 245) is DENIED as moot.
This case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling in regard to the sole
remaining unserved defendant, Dave Brown.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
October 11, 2013

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.