Brown v. South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind et al

Filing 55

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51 , granting 41 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Cindy Gass, Renee Poole, South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/9/2012. Plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.(gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Robert S. Brown,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina School for the Deaf and )
Blind; Ms. Cindy Gass, Human
)
Resource Manager; and Ms. Renee
)
Poole, CID Office,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 7:11-01111-TMC

OPINION and ORDER

Robert S. Brown (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action against the
Defendants alleging a disability discrimination claim pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and a state claim for wrongful
termination. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g), D.S.C., all pretrial matters in employment discrimination cases are
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for consideration. On March 14, 2012,
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #
51) recommending that the court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
# 41) and that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
state claims. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts
and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final

1

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 and Recommendation 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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. # 51-1). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, this 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 and
Recommendation 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); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.”).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in

2

this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #
51) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 41) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, and the
court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
April 9, 2012

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.

3