COLEMAN v. THE BOEING COMPANY

C/A No. 2:16-cv-1451 DCN.

Carlos Coleman, Plaintiff, v. The Boeing Company; Dallas Ratliff; Darren Hardy; Jeff Stein; Simone Cobbett; and Lindsey Snell, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Carlos Coleman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Cherie Wilson Blackburn , Nexsen Pruet & Melissa Ashley Fried , Nexsen Pruet.

Dallas Ratliff, Defendant, represented by Cherie Wilson Blackburn , Nexsen Pruet & Melissa Ashley Fried , Nexsen Pruet.

Darren Hardy, Defendant, represented by Cherie Wilson Blackburn , Nexsen Pruet & Melissa Ashley Fried , Nexsen Pruet.

Jeff Stein, Defendant, represented by Cherie Wilson Blackburn , Nexsen Pruet & Melissa Ashley Fried , Nexsen Pruet.

Simone Cobbett, Defendant, represented by Cherie Wilson Blackburn , Nexsen Pruet & Melissa Ashley Fried , Nexsen Pruet.

Lindsey Snell, Defendant, represented by Cherie Wilson Blackburn , Nexsen Pruet & Melissa Ashley Fried , Nexsen Pruet.


ORDER

DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants' partial motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint be granted.

This court is charged with conducting a 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 contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (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 those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984 ).1 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation were timely filed on July 10, 2017 by the plaintiff.

A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is AFFIRMED, and defendants' partial motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint is GRANTED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

FootNotes


1. In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro se litigant must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate judge's report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice must be `sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to appraise him of what is required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was advised in a clear manner that his objections had to be filed within ten (10) days, and he received notice of the consequences at the appellate level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases