From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. S.C. Dep't of Disabilities & Special Needs

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jul 7, 2016
Civil Action No.: 4:15-5033-BHH (D.S.C. Jul. 7, 2016)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 4:15-5033-BHH

07-07-2016

Juanita Jackson, Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs Defendant.


ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Juanita Jackson ("Plaintiff"), filed this action against her former employer, South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs ("Defendant"), asserting claims under Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation ("Report").

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 13.) On June 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge West issued a Report recommending that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be granted and this matter be dismissed. (ECF No. 31.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. (ECF No. 31-1.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on July 5, 2016.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).

After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks

United States District Judge July 7, 2016
Greenville, 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.


Summaries of

Jackson v. S.C. Dep't of Disabilities & Special Needs

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jul 7, 2016
Civil Action No.: 4:15-5033-BHH (D.S.C. Jul. 7, 2016)
Case details for

Jackson v. S.C. Dep't of Disabilities & Special Needs

Case Details

Full title:Juanita Jackson, Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of Disabilities…

Court:DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Jul 7, 2016

Citations

Civil Action No.: 4:15-5033-BHH (D.S.C. Jul. 7, 2016)

Citing Cases

Bolds v. S.C. Dep't of Mental Health

(Dkt. No. 24 at 4-5); Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cnty., Md., 789 F.3d 407, 421 (4th Cir. 2015) ("Based on the…