IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Aboe Banks, C/A No. 3:25-cv-12538-SAL-SVH

Plaintiff,

v. ORD ER

Sizemore, Inc.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Aboe Banks (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action alleging that her former employer violated her rights concerning her Crohn’s disease and that she was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for seeking those rights. [ECF No. 5.] Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Plaintiff opposes. [ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9.] This matter is now before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, pursuant to

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 10.] The Report recommends Defendant’s motion be granted in part and denied in part and further recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims.

The Report included a notice advising the parties, both represented by counsel, of their right to file objections and the consequences of failing to do so.

. Neither party filed objections. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standards, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 10, and incorporates it by reference herein. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs breach of contract claims are hereby dismissed without prejudice. This matter remains referred to the magistrate judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. Sherr tk. December 12, 2025 Sherr A. te □□□ Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge