From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Propel PEO, Inc. v. Roach

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Aug 11, 2020
C.A. No. 6:19-3546-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2020)

Opinion

C.A. No. 6:19-3546-HMH-KFM

08-11-2020

Propel PEO, Inc., Propel HR, Inc., Lee C. Yarborough, and Propel Holding Company, Inc. Plaintiffs, v. Sean Eric Roach, Idea Catapult, LLC, Angela Morris f/k/a Angela Renea Tyler, and Arron Drye, Defendants.


OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge McDonald, 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 Plaintiffs filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, 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). The court 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).

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

ORDERED that the motions to dismiss of defendants Roach, Drye, and Morris [39], [40], [43] be granted in part and denied in part; defendant Morris' alternative motion for a more definite statement [43] be denied; defendant Roach's first motion to strike [38] be granted; and defendant Roach's second motion to strike [59] be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Henry M. Herlong, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
August 11, 2020


Summaries of

Propel PEO, Inc. v. Roach

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Aug 11, 2020
C.A. No. 6:19-3546-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2020)
Case details for

Propel PEO, Inc. v. Roach

Case Details

Full title:Propel PEO, Inc., Propel HR, Inc., Lee C. Yarborough, and Propel Holding…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Aug 11, 2020

Citations

C.A. No. 6:19-3546-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2020)

Citing Cases

Rollins Ranches, LLC v. Watson

ore, are insufficient to state a claim for civil conspiracy under South Carolina law, where “a plaintiff…