Dr. Kristy Michelle Wolff, Plaintiff, vs. Call 4 Health, Inc., Jenny Mahon Sim, Jody Carey, Charmaine Ferguson, Aden Zeaman, Janet Blackston, Francesca Cloud, Samantha Doobay, Dustin Garmain, and Maria Iglesias, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-2260-CMC-SVH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
October 28, 2024
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Kristy Wolff‘s (“Plaintiff“) pro se Complaint alleging employment discrimination by Defendants. ECF No. 1. In accordance with
Service was authorized on all Defendants on May 20, 2024, and the Magistrate Judge informed Plaintiff she had until August 19, 2024, to serve the summons and complaint on all Defendants. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff filed a summons returned executed on Call 4 Health on June 26, 2024. ECF No. 12. On August 22, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order to Show Cause placing Plaintiff on notice the proof of service filed as to Call 4 Health showed service was improper under the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and unless she filed proof of proper service as to Defendants by September 23, 2024, or showed good cause for her failure to effect service, the Magistrate Judge would recommend any defendant who was not properly served be dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 13.
On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, contending Defendant Call 4 Health failed to respond to effected service and requesting default judgment. ECF No. 15 at 3. On August 28, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending Plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment, construed as a motion for entry of default and default judgment against Call 4 Health, be denied, as service was improper. ECF No. 16. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. Plaintiff filed objections. ECF No. 18.
Plaintiff also filed a response to the Order to Show Cause on August 5, 2024, including attempts to serve Call 4 Health‘s registered agent in Florida. ECF No. 19. On September 6, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Text Order reminding Plaintiff she was permitted until September 23, 2024, to file proper proof of service as to all Defendants, including the individual defendants. She was put on notice if she failed to file proper service or show good cause for her failure to effect service, the Magistrate Judge would recommend dismissal for any defendant not properly served. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for extension of time to file proof of service, focusing on her efforts to serve Call 4 Health. ECF No. 23. The Magistrate Judge granted this motion in part, allowing until October 12, 2024, for Plaintiff to file proof of service on Call 4 Health. ECF No. 24. However, the Magistrate Judge reiterated proof of service for the individual defendants must be filed no later than September 23, 2024. Id.
Plaintiff filed proof of service showing properly effected service on the registered agent for Call 4 Health. ECF Nos. 26, 27. No proof of service was filed for any other Defendant. Accordingly, on September 27, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a second Report recommending
STANDARD
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See
DISCUSSION
1. Report on Plaintiff‘s Motion for Summary Judgment/Default (ECF No. 16)
The Magistrate Judge‘s initial Report, filed August 28, 2024, construed Plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment as one for default and default judgment, and recommended denying default and default judgment because Call 4 Health was not properly served under the South Carolina or
Plaintiff objected to the Report. ECF No. 18. She made several arguments about the propriety of her attempted service on Call 4 Health. However, Plaintiff has now effected proper service on Call 4 Health, which has been acknowledged by the court and the Defendant. Call 4 Health has now answered. ECF No. 30.
After a review of the record, the applicable law, the initial Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge entered August 28, 2024, and Plaintiff‘s objections to that Report, the court agrees with that Report‘s recommendation and adopts the Report at ECF No. 16 by reference as modified in this Order. Plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15), construed as one for entry of default and default judgment, is dismissed as moot.
2. Report on Service for Individual Defendants
In the second Report, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the individual Defendants Sim, Carey, Ferguson, Zeaman, Blackston, Cloud, Doobay, Garmain, and Iglesias pursuant to
After a review of the record, the applicable law, and the second Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report‘s recommendation these Defendants be dismissed. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report at ECF No. 28 by reference in this Order. Defendants Sim, Carey, Ferguson, Zeaman, Blackston, Cloud, Doobay, Garmain, and Iglesias are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Plaintiff‘s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is dismissed as moot. Defendants Sim, Carey, Ferguson, Zeaman, Blackston, Cloud, Doobay,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
October 28, 2024