Rankins v. GCA Services Group of North Carolina, Inc. ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:19-cv-00504-RJC-DSC ERICA L. RANKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ORDER GCA SERVICES GROUP OF NORTH ) CAROLINA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 5), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum & Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 12). I. BACKGROUND On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed her complaint asserting claims for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, negligent supervision and retention, assault, battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 10, 2020, Defendant filed its partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s assault and battery claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 5.) In the M&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court deny Defendant’s motion. (Doc. No. 12, at 5.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within fourteen days, (Doc. No. 12, at 5); however, no objections were filed, and the time for doing so has expired. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters pending before the court to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). “[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.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). III. DISCUSSION As no objection to the M&R has been made, the parties have waived their right to de novo review of any issues covered in the M&R. After review of the M&R and the entire record, the Court determines that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to deny Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Therefore, the Court adopts the M&R. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 12), is ADOPTED and Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 5), is DENIED. Signed: May 18, 2020 Robert J. Conrad, Jr. Red. United States District Judge ane