Simmons v. O'Neill et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts the magistrate judge's 34 Report. Defendants' 11 motion to dismiss the complaint against Moving Defendants. Case is referred back to the magistrate judge for pretrialproceedings as the case will proceed against defendant Spartanburg County. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/10/2018. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Katherine O’Neill, Jim Hipp, Kim Mary
Danner, Spartanburg County,
Civil Action No. 7:17-2337-TMC-JDA
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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
the court grant Katherine O’Neill, Kim Hipp, and Kim Mary Danner’s (collectively, the “Moving
Defendants”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint against Moving Defendants. (ECF No. 11).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 34-1). However,
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
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. 34) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED
that Moving Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint against Moving Defendants (ECF No.
11) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the case is referred back to the magistrate judge for pretrial
proceedings as the case will proceed against defendant Spartanburg County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
April 10, 2018
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?