Allen v. Michelin North American Inc - USA et al

Filing 35

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 . After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set forth in this order, the court adopts the magistrate judges Report 30 , which is incor porated herein by reference. Accordingly, Defendant Michelin North American, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss 17 is GRANTED in part, and Plaintiffs claims alleging failure to accommodate and hostile work environment in violation of the ADA and all c laims under Title VII and the ADEA are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, because the parties agree to the dismissal of any state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, such claims are now DISMISSED. As such, the only remaining claims in this case are those for violation of the ADA based on disability discrimination as to Michelins alleged failure to allow Plaintiff to return to work and as to the paperwork that Michelin allegedly submitted to the Social Security Administration Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 9/11/2018. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Joyce M. Allen,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michelin North American, Inc.
and Beacon Health Options, Inc.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-00791-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint on March 22, 2018, alleging violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (ECF No. 1, 1-2). Defendant Michelin North
American, Inc.1 filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 8, 2018. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff obtained
counsel and responded to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 27). Defendant Michelin North
American, Inc. replied. (ECF No. 29). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial
handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and that Plaintiff’s claims alleging
failure to accommodate and hostile work environment in violation of the ADA and all claims
alleged under Title VII and the ADEA be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 30). Furthermore, the magistrate judge noted in his Report that the parties
agreed to the dismissal of any state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
(ECF No. 30 at 6). Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, did not file any objections to the
Report, and the time to do so has now run.
1

This defendant was previously improperly named as “Michelin North American, Inc. USA” and “Michelin North
American, Inc. US2.”
1

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 30), which is incorporated
herein by reference. Accordingly, Defendant Michelin North American Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 17) is GRANTED in part, and Plaintiff’s claims alleging failure to accommodate and
hostile work environment in violation of the ADA and all claims under Title VII and the ADEA
are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, because
the parties agree to the dismissal of any state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, such claims are now DISMISSED. As such, the only remaining claims in this case are
those for violation of the ADA based on disability discrimination as to Michelin’s alleged failure
to allow Plaintiff to return to work and as to the paperwork that Michelin allegedly submitted to
the Social Security Administration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
September 11, 2018
2