Williams v. Roechling Automotive Duncan LLP

Filing 49

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 47 Report and Recommendation, denying 22 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Roechling Automotive Duncan LLP. This action is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge forfurther pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 8/27/12. (alew, )

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

Eric Williams,

) Civil Action No.: 7:11-3497-MGL-KFM
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
Röchling Automotive USA, LLP,
)
)
Defendant. )
)
____________________________________ )
Plaintiff Eric Williams filed this action against Defendant alleging claims for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq. and interference with rights
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) in his amended complaint.
(ECF No. 15.)
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action concerning
Plaintiff’s ERISA claim on February 24, 2012. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff filed his response on March
12, 2012 (ECF No. 25) and Defendant filed a reply on March 22, 2012 (ECF No. 27). In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this pretrial employment
discrimination matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for
consideration. The Magistrate Judge has prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation and
suggests that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be denied. The Report and Recommendation sets forth
in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such
without a recitation.
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22)
be denied. Defendant has filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for
doing so has expired.
After reviewing the motion, the record, and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. This action is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for
further pretrial handling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge

Spartanburg, South Carolina
August 27, 2012

-2-