Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Abraham v. Rohoho Inc., 3:18-03082-MGL. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20190422802 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE MARY GEIGER LEWIS , District Judge . This case was filed as an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff Alex Abraham (Abraham) is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendant Rohoho Inc.'s (Rohoho) motion to dismiss shou
More

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This case was filed as an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff Alex Abraham (Abraham) is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendant Rohoho Inc.'s (Rohoho) motion to dismiss should be granted and Abraham's complaint should be dismissed. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 27, 2019, ECF No. 30, but Abraham failed to file any objections to the Report. "[I]n 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.3d310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Rohoho's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Abraham's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer