Mumford v. Florence County Disabilities and Special Needs Board ( 2019 )

psES DISTR Es Oy te Ne Sa See lk oY SIME o/s er” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION LAKESHIA MUMFORD, § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § Civil Action No. 4:19-01330-MGL-KDW FLORENCE COUNTY DISABILITIES AND § SPECIAL NEEDS BOARD, § Defendant. § § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLANTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY Plaintiff Lakeshia Mumford (Mumford), filed this action asserting several federal causes of action, along with a state-based cause of action, alleging she was wrongfully discharged by Defendant Florence County Disabilities and Special Needs Board (Defendant). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss be granted, dismissing Mumford’s third cause of action. 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)(C). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on September 17, 2019. To date, Mumford has failed to file any specific written 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.3d 310, 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 under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Mumford’s third cause of action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 5th Day of November 2019 in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE