OROUJIAN v. DELFIN GROUP USA LLC, 2:13-2581-PMD. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20141030e00
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge. This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted. The record includes the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge made in accordance with this Court's Order of Reference and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C.. The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to whi
Summary: ORDER PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge. This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted. The record includes the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge made in accordance with this Court's Order of Reference and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C.. The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to whic..
More
ORDER
PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted. The record includes the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge made in accordance with this Court's Order of Reference and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C..
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report.
A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's disparate treatment and retaliation claims under Title VII and § 1981 as set forth in the First and Second Causes of Action is DENIED. Defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action is GRANTED, and those claims are dismissed.
ORDERED, that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted as the order of this Court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
