Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Woodard v. SDH Services East, LLC, 0:19-cv-335-CMC-SVH. (2020)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20200319d03 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 18, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2020
Summary: Opinion and Order CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE , Senior District Judge . Through this action, Plaintiff Susan Woodard ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, alleges employment discrimination on the basis of her race, sex, national origin, and age, as well as retaliation, against Whitney Bettie, Loree Sorenson, and SDH Services East, LLC. 1 ECF No. 1, 1-4 (supplement). On January 16, 2020, the court entered an Order adopting in part the Report and Recommendation which recommended dismissal of the in
More

Opinion and Order

Through this action, Plaintiff Susan Woodard ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, alleges employment discrimination on the basis of her race, sex, national origin, and age, as well as retaliation, against Whitney Bettie, Loree Sorenson, and SDH Services East, LLC.1 ECF No. 1, 1-4 (supplement). On January 16, 2020, the court entered an Order adopting in part the Report and Recommendation which recommended dismissal of the individual Defendants Bettie and Sorenson, as well as dismissal of the race, sex, and national origin discrimination claims. ECF Nos. 35 (Report), 40 (Order). The Order allowed Plaintiff until March 9, 2020, to file an Amended Complaint to submit additional clarification and details regarding her race, sex, and national origin discrimination claims, in particular, to allege an adverse employment action tied to those characteristics.

However, Plaintiff has failed to file a motion for leave to amend her Complaint, and the time for doing so has expired. There has been no motion by either party to extend the deadlines in the Scheduling Order. Therefore, as Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to assert an adverse employment action tied to her race, sex, or national origin, those claims are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's claims for discrimination based on age and retaliation continue, and this matter is re-referred to the Magistrate Judge for pre-trial proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Defendants Bettie and Sorenson were dismissed with prejudice by the court's Order of January 16, 2020. ECF No. 40.
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