Filed: Jul. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2016
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS , District Judge . 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
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS , District Judge . 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 ..
More
ORDER AND OPINION
BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge.
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.
