Arif v. Staubli Corporation

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendants 4 motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim is dismissed. Plaintiff is ordered to file an Amended Complaint within ten days of this order. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 5/19/2015. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Robin Hahn Arif,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Staubli Corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 7:14-4614-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Robin Hahn Arif (“Arif”) filed this action alleging a claim for job discrimination
and a hostile and abusive working environment pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 621. In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, 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 Defendant Staubli Corporation’s (Staubli”)
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) be granted with respect to Arif’s hostile work environment claim
and denied with respect to her age discrimination claim. (ECF No. 14). Arif did not file any
objections, and Staubli filed a response to the Report in which it states that it disagrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation not to grant its motion to dismiss in its entirety, but it “is not
lodging specific objections to the report . . . ” (ECF No. 15 at1). Instead, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), Stubli requests that this court “slightly modify or expand upon” parts of the
Report
to either: (1) order Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim, and all related
allegations that do not relate to the remaining age discrimination claim, stricken
from her Complaint; or, (2) alternatively, order Plaintiff to file an amended
Complaint removing the dismissed hostile work environment claim and the
underlying allegations related solely to that claim. The relevant paragraphs of the
Complaint that Staubli seeks stricken or removed are, in relevant part: (1) That
portion of Paragraph 11 which alleges that Plaintiff was instructed by Bobby
1

Cranford "not to hire people who were not Caucasian or 'white people';" (2) The
entirety of Paragraphs 7 and 8, the allegations on which Plaintiff based her
purported claim for hostile work environment; and (3) The entirety of Plaintiffs
"Second Theory of Liability," including Paragraphs 16 and 17.
Id. at 2. Arif did not file a reply and the time to do so has now run. After considering Staubli’s
response to the report, the court agrees that Plaintiff Arif should file an amended complaint
deleting the hostile work environment claim and the underlying allegations related to the hostile
work environment claim.
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, 27071 (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 & 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
magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 14) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiff’s
hostile work environment claim is dismissed. Plaintiff is ordered to file an Amended
Complaint within ten days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
May 19, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina
2