Summary
In Karoue, a District Court in this district held that the "[defendant] had no duty to provide a reasonable accommodation or even engage in the interactive process until the plaintiff specifically requested an accommodation that she tied to the stated disability."
Summary of this case from Kemp v. JHM Enters., Inc.Opinion
C/A No.: 3:13-cv-01844-JFA
11-07-2014
Patricia Karoue, Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, doing business as Companion Data Services, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
The plaintiff, Patricia Karoue ("Plaintiff"), filed this employment case alleging claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., against her former employer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina doing business as Companion Data Services, LLC ("Defendant"). Defendant has moved for summary judgment (ECF No. 40), which Plaintiff opposes. (ECF No. 49).
In her complaint, Plaintiff asserts a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as state law claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. On February 25, 2014, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and granted Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the contract-based claims. (ECF No. 38).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation ("Report") wherein he recommends that the court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
--------
Plaintiff was advised of her right to file objections to the Report, which was entered on the docket on August 26, 2014. (ECF No. 56). However, Plaintiff did not file any objections. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to provide any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. This Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation proper and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, this Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40 and denies Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 52.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 7, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge