Osborne v. Suminoe Textile of America Corporation

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 . Defendant Suminoes motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the motion is granted as to Osbornes claim for punitive damages and denied as to all other claims. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 6/13/2013. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Reginald Osborne,
Plaintiff,
v.
Suminoe Textile of America Corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 7:13-11-TMC-KFM

ORDER

The plaintiff, Reginald Osborne (“Osborne”), filed this action against his former
employer, Suminoe Textile of America Corporation (“Suminoe”), alleging that his discharge
violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Suminoe filed a motion to dismiss
Osborne’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4), (5), and (6). (ECF
No. 10.) Osborne responded to the motion (ECF No. 13) and Suminoe replied to Osborne’s
response (ECF No. 15).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., all pre-trial
matters were referred to a magistrate judge. This case is now before the court on the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court grant in part and
deny in part Suminoe’s motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no
presumptive weight and this court retains the responsibility to make a final determination. 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 to which a party specifically objects, 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). In this case, neither party
objected to the Report.

In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the magistrate judge’s 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Report (ECF No. 18) and incorporates it herein. Therefore, Suminoe’s motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 10) is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the motion is granted as to Osborne’s
claim for punitive damages and denied as to all other claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
June 13, 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

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.