Summary
recommending dismissal where BAC "argue[d] that it should be dismissed from th[e] action because the plaintiff was not employed by it but was instead employed by Merrill Lynch, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of [BAC]" and "[t]he plaintiff state[d] in his complaint that he was employed 'by the defendant[, i.e., BAC,] in the Merrill Lynch branch located in Spartanburg'"
Summary of this case from Freeney v. Bank of America Corp.Opinion
Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-02783-JMC
05-20-2013
Harold E. Blackwell, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Bank of America Corporation, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), [Dkt. No. 27], filed on April 26, 2013, recommending Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 15] be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on these matters which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is 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 to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 27 at 9]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 27]. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 15] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
May 20, 2013