Reese v. Company Wrench, Ltd. LLC

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-04161
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Richard Kenny Reese, C/A No. 3:25-cv-4161-JFA-SVH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Company Wrench, Ltd. LLC,

Defendant.

In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff alleges that his disability was not accommodated by his former employer and that he was discriminated and retaliated against when his employment was terminated. In response, Defendant employer moved for partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 5). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review of this dispositive motion. After performing an initial review of the motion for partial dismissal and responsive briefing, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 12). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this motion should be granted Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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). facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

Both parties were advised of their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on August 20, 2025. Id. The Magistrate Judge required any objections to be filed by September 3, 2025. Id. Neither party filed objections and the time for doing so has elapsed. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Here, both parties have failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not

required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss should be granted. 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. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 12). Consequently, Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim (ECF No 5) is granted. This matter is recommitted back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dptoge 5 Comabsem gp October 8, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge