Ensley v. Goodwill Industries of Lower SC
Filing
38
ORDER and OPINION RULING ON 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report of the Magistrate Judge and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/19/2018. (vdru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Wayne Ensley,
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Goodwill Industries of Lower SC,
)
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________
)
Civil Action No. 9:17-3113-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s complaint alleging that his former
employer, Goodwill Industries of Lower SC, discriminated against him in violation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim for breach of
contract. (ECF No. 1 at 4, 8–9.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge for preliminary determinations. On September 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge Kevin
F. McDonald issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and
recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII and ADEA claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a
notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen
days of being served with a copy. To date, no 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 have been 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 error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
determination that this action should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In
addition, the action should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. Accordingly, the Court adopts and
incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 34) and dismisses this action with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 19, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
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?