From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bautista v. Clemson University

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Oct 2, 2007
C.A. No. 8:07-1287-HMH-WMC (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2007)

Summary

indicating that it is the defendant's burden, on a motion to dismiss, to file the EEOC charge that forms the basis of the defendant's exhaustion argument

Summary of this case from Goolsby v. High Caliber Services, Inc.

Opinion

C.A. No. 8:07-1287-HMH-WMC.

October 2, 2007


OPINION AND ORDER


This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).

The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Catoe's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bautista v. Clemson University

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Oct 2, 2007
C.A. No. 8:07-1287-HMH-WMC (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2007)

indicating that it is the defendant's burden, on a motion to dismiss, to file the EEOC charge that forms the basis of the defendant's exhaustion argument

Summary of this case from Goolsby v. High Caliber Services, Inc.
Case details for

Bautista v. Clemson University

Case Details

Full title:Gloria Bautista, Plaintiff, v. Clemson University, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

Date published: Oct 2, 2007

Citations

C.A. No. 8:07-1287-HMH-WMC (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2007)

Citing Cases

Goolsby v. High Caliber Services, Inc.

As a basic matter, the defendant's motion is not properly supported because the EEOC charge was not filed in…

Bravo v. American Honda Finance Corporation

Plaintiff was very specific in her EEOC charge that she was discharged because she is Hispanic. It seems…