Opinion
CASE NO.: 2:09-cv-01912-RMG.
October 22, 2010
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carr that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g), which provides for such referrals in all "employment discrimination cases invoking federal statutes . . ." This case arises out of the refusal of the Defendant employer to reemploy Plaintiff, a Certified Medical Assistant, following the completion of maternity leave, which she alleged to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. Section 200e(k). The Defendant denied liability and, upon completion of discovery, moved for summary judgment on May 11, 2010. Oral argument was held before Magistrate Judge Carr on June 8, 2010. A Report and Recommendation was issued by Magistrate Judge Carr on September 14, 2010, recommending the Court grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. No timely objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed by the Plaintiff.
This Court is charged with conducting de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations made in the report. 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). However, absent timely objection by a dissatisfied party, Congress did not intend for the District Court to review factual and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Thomas vs. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-151 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely written objections to the Magistrate Judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise objections at the appellate court level. United States vs. Schronce, 727 F. 2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1985).
A review of the record indicates that the Magistrate Judge's report accurately summarizes the case and properly applies the applicable law without error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrates Judge's Report and Recommendation of September 14, 2010 is adopted as the Order of this Court. For reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 22, 2010 Charleston, SC