Cetina v. Michelin North America et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Chavez is dismissed from the case. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 11/6/12. (kmca)

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

Tanya Lynn Cetina,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Michelin North America;
Newbold Services; Clint Morgan;
Dave Murphy; Dave Brown;
Dave Mauger; Sandra Chavez,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 6:12-2222-HMH-JDA
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Tanya Lynn Cetina (“Cetina”), proceeding
pro se, filed a complaint asserting the following claims: hostile work environment, race
discrimination, and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended
42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that Defendant Chavez be
dismissed from the case because no private right of action exists against the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or an employee of the EEOC acting in his or her official
capacity. See Jordan v. Summers, 205 F.3d 337, 342 (7th Cir. 2000) (“It is well established that
a private-sector employee has no cause of action against the EEOC for its failure to process a

1

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

charge of discrimination.”); Jensen v. Conrad, 570 F. Supp. 91, 98-99 (D.S.C. 1983) (“[A] suit
against a public official in his public capacity is treated as a suit against the entity.”). Cetina
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate
review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce,
727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Cetina’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate her
claims. Therefore, after a thorough review, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Austin’s Report
and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Chavez is dismissed from the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
November 6, 2012

2

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Plaintiff is hereby notified that she has the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

3