Anthony Cromartie v. South Carolina Department of Transportation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Anthony Cromartie Case No.: 3:25-cv-13542-SAL Plaintiff, v. ORDER South Carolina Department of Transportation, Defendant.

Plaintiff Anthony Cromartie, proceeding through counsel, filed this action asserting claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601. Before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by the South Carolina Department of Transportation (“Defendant”). [ECF No. 4.] United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett reviewed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) and issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending Defendant’s motion be granted. [ECF No. 21.] As stated in the Report, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Id. at 3–4. Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Id. at 6. Neither party has objected, and the time for doing so has expired.

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, 423 U.S. 261, 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Absent 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., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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 standard, the court finds no clear error, ADOPTS the Report, ECF No. 21, and incorporates it by reference. As a result, Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. sherr tt.

April 13, 2026 Shern A. Lydon dinn— Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge