Massaquoi v. American Credit Acceptance et al

Filing 28

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts the Magistrate Judges 20 Report and dismisses Defendants Angela Preuter and Sharon Ponder without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The action is still pending against the remaining Defendant. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/12/2016. (gpre, )

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

Brenda Massaquoi,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
American Credit Acceptance,
)
Angela Preuter,
)
Sharon Ponder,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 7:16-2220-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Brenda Massaquoi’s pro se complaint
alleging unlawful employment discrimination. 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 determinations. On September 14, 2016, Magistrate
Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) outlining
Plaintiff’s complaint and recommending that the Court dismiss Defendants Angela Preuter
and Sharon Ponder without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties that they may file specific, written
objections to the Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy. To date, no
written 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 objections were filed, 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 has failed to state a plausible Title VII claim against Defendants Angela Preuter and
Sharon Ponder insofar as Plaintiff does not allege that either of these individual Defendants
was Plaintiff’s employer.
Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 20)
and dismisses Defendants Angela Preuter and Sharon Ponder without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. The action is still pending against the remaining
Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 12, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina

2