Pearson v. Perfect Delivery North America

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendation. Defendant's 12 Motion to Dismiss is granted. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 11/13/2023. (jens)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Brianah Pearson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Perfect Delivery North America
)
doing business as Papa John’s,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 6:23-cv-1648-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Brianah Pearson’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint
alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, as well several state law claims. On May 18, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 12.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
preliminary consideration.
On October 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant
Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 17.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found
that all of Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was
a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within
fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court

is charged with making a de novo determination only 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 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no party has filed objections to the Report, the Court has reviewed
the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Accordingly, the Court hereby
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 17) and grants Defendant’s motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 12), thereby ending this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
November 13, 2023
Charleston, South Carolina

2