6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 06/21/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ProSe [Non-Prisoner] Complaint Form

[Emer the full name of the plaimijf in this action]
··CATHERINE AMILA BROWN
Y.
[Enter the full name of each defendant in this action. Ifpossible, please list only one defendant per line.]
Cynthia Pennington Denise Forrester Julia T. Cannon Pat Mitchel Mark A. Delledonne Victoria A. Mackey South Carolina Employment Sec. CommiSSion

) Civil Action No.
)--------~------
.) (to be assigned by Clerk) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
J
) ) ) ) ) ) )

"':t('·;,·..·.)
c':-:::
~
N
)>
ld
{.!'1 --J

~::-

E.'•':t' ~ .~u,

C)

n

~-
r-·

-·~

- ..• J 'l

..

_.
I

,. '''~--.:.-:,:
-l
.:.J

If allowed by statute, do you wisll to llave a trial by jury? Yes __x__

No

[If any answer requires additional space, please use additional paper and attach hereto.] I. PREVIOUS LAWSL'"ITS

A. Have .vou begun otha lawsuits in state or federal court dealing with the same facrs involved in this action?

Yes ·----

:-.!o X

6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 06/21/10 Entry Number 1 Page 2 of 6

B. lf.vour answer to A is Yes, describe the lawsuit in the space below. [If more than one lawsuit, describe on another sheet ofpaper using the same outline.} 1. Parties to this previous lawsuit:

Plaintiff:-------------------------

Defendam(s): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.

C

ourt:
1/ffederal coun,

------
name the district;

-if s-tat-e c-uun-, n-am-e t-he

---
county)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3. Docket N u m b e r : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4. Name(s) of Judge(s) to whom case was assigned:----------

5. Status of C a s e : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
!For example. waJ· tile case dismissed? Settled? Appellleti? Still Pending?)

6. Date lawsuit was f i l e d : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Date ofdisposition (if concluded): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C. Do you have any other lawsuit(s) pending in the federal court in South Carolina? Yes _ __ No _....t.X,___

II. PARTIES

In Item A below, place your name and address in the space provided. [If additional plaintiffs, do the same on another sheet ofpaper.]

A. Name of Plaintiff: Catherine Amila Brown Address: 100 Idlewild Avenue; Greenville, SC

29605

In Item B below, place the full name of the defendant, and his/her/its address, in the space provided. Use Item C for additional defendants, if any. B. Name of Defendant: Cynthia Pennington, Mauldin High Cafeteria Address:701 East Bulter Road, Mauldin, SC 29662; Denise
Forrester, Mauldin High Cafeteria, 701 East Bulter Road, Mauldin, SC 29662; Julia T. Cannon.& Pat Mitchell,

Greenville County Schools Administration, 301 East camperdown Way, Greenville, SC 29601;

6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 06/21/10 Entry Number 1 Page 3 of 6
C. Additional Defendants (provide the same information for each defendant as listed in Item B above): Mark A Delledone, EEOC 301 North Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601; Victoria A. Mackey, EEOC Charlotte District Office, 129 west Trade Street, Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28202; South Carolina Employment Security Commission, Post Office Box 995, Columbia, SC 29202

III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
aaoISnrntfgacpdultauemspdeheeet1efrr1a~eitlsf,nsonhoaesrtechacebetsc.rtshineeaafacrlmylyna.eyai(mssc)apioslolefssasoiotsbherleepsr,atparthateuretetsefoapsnc.astrsaIinfgovyrfooaylupovheui.ndr,tecUdnasasdeetet.aos,sDaamlelneusdcgcrehpilbasaepcnaehucsom.ewbaDeesaroycoo1huf1ordnteegelfaeeivtndee.ddaacAnnlttyatiaislmcehigsn,avelnoxultvrmaedbs.ehreets

Pat Mitchell, the Director of Greenville County School District's

Human Resource, allows his staff members to terminate hourly

wage employee without

his human resourse department being

aware of the firing till after the firing and such type activity

11nfair to the fired employee especially if his staff does not

inform the fired employee of its rights to appeal its firing to

other administrative levels.<see exhibit 6) In this case the

empl0yee firing takes place on the 17th and human resource was

notjfied an the 18th, thereby strippin the employee of a fair

hearing before the firing.

6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 06/21/10 Entry Number 1 Page 4 of 6
III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM- continued. Mark A. Delledonne and Victoria A. Mackey both employed as Investigators with THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIONS Viewed the Plaintiff commission files with the same information
that the commission filed the three charges against the ~ohool district but months later dismissed the charges citing, "no finding is made as to another other issues that might be construed", ask~ng the plaintiff via telephone conversation and goin to the incident location asking working employees about the way the working supervjsor treats her working employees is a very weal<: investigation to warrant a dismissal of someone who has been unfairly treated as the plaintiff in this matter.
THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION relied upon Julia cannon's report in supporting there reasons t6 disqualify unemployment benefits for 8 weeks the plaintiff were firedunfairly, erronous information relied upon,by the commission, and lost of wages, and lost of unemployment benefits for 8 weeks really sit plaintiff in the cost of living expenses.
(see additiona1 pages with exhibits)

6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 06/21/10 Entry Number 1 Page 5 of 6
Two white females Denise Forrester and Cynthia Pennington worked as a team to fire one black female, Catherine Brown, from here duties At Mauldin High Cafeteria after Catherine hao work 4years and five months with the Greenville County Food ano Nutition services in the District of Greenville County schools.
The Cafeteria immediately superivsor, Denise Forrester, takes a written statement from Fooo Service Operator Cynthia Pennington, during a time that Cynthia and Food Service Operator, Catherine Brown worked the same serving line, on the very same date and time however, supervisor Denise Forrester, did not, take a statement from Catherine Brown against Cynthia Pennington, Denise used Cynthia's statement to write an indicent warning report against the black employee and use Cynthia Pennington, the white female, as her material witness against Catherine, the black employee.
(See Exhibits 1, 2, and 3)
In a seperate matter the same two white females Denise Forrester and Cynthia Pennington teamed to have Catherine fired when on November17, 2008, Catherine put a glass bottle of juice, in the freezer Catherine removed the bottle from the freezer placed the bottle in the "designated area for employee personnel food items" near the microwave about 8-10feet from the freezer.
Meanwhile, while the bottle was there in the designated area Cynthia Penningto picks up Catherine bottle beging waving and shaking the bottl until the bottom gave way to the bottle in the "designated a ea for employee personal item". Once the bottle broke Superivor D nise Forrester walks to the area of the broken glass
(Exhibit 4)
On November 17, 2008, in Mauldin High Cafeteria Office, Superivor, Denise Forrester and Area Manager, Julia Cannon~team~ta:~ire•me of my duties at Mauldin High Cafeteria, However, On November 18, Julia Cannon follow-up letter to the firing does not mention Oatherine,s rights to appeal their firing decision through other administrative levels through the District.
(Exhibit 5)
Therefore, Catherine was fired from her employment on erroneous information gathered by three white females that had no love for a 65 year old black senior citizen who worked hard for the district four years and 5 months with an income and insurance before being fired without the proper notification of her rights to appeal.

6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 06/21/10 Entry Number 1 Page 6 of 6
IV. RELIEF. State briefly and exactly what .rou want this court to do for you. Monetary damages t6 pay back for loss of wages and unemployment benefits; Actual and punitive damages; Decree to have the Greenville School District to apply the Appeal procedures to "Hourly employees, in writin, Clfter a firinq.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this .Jt!!:.day of __-Qt.,..__...,.~w~G'~------· 20 10 .
~ am:k .AM7Mi> Signature of Plaintiff

 
 6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 08/13/10 Entry Number 14 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Catherine Amila Brown,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cynthia Pennington, Mauldin High Cafeteria; Denise Forrester, Mauldin High Cafeteria; Julia T Cannon, Greenville County Schools Administration; Pat Mitchell, Greenville County Schools Administration; Mark A Delledonne, EEOC; Victoria A Mackey, EEOC Charlotte District Office; South Carolina Employment Security Commission,
Defendants. __________________________________________

) C/A No. 6:10-1587-RBH-BHH

)

)

)

)

)

REPORT AND

) RECOMMENDATION FOR

) DISMISSAL OF PARTIES

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

This employment discrimination action is filed by the pro se plaintiff, Catherine Amila

Brown (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding in this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 The complaint names as defendants two federal employees with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission, and a state agency, the South Carolina

Employment Security Commission, who are not subject to liability in this case. These

Defendants should be dismissed as parties in this case.

Pro Se and In Forma Pauperis Review

Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been

made of the pro se complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

This review has been conducted in light of the following precedents: Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404

1 Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.

6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 08/13/10 Entry Number 14 Page 2 of 5
U.S. 519 (1972); and Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978). The complaint herein has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits
an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii).
This Court is required to liberally construe pro se documents, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), holding them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 9 (1980) (per curiam). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so, but a district court may not rewrite a petition to include claims that were never presented, Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999), or construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 417-18 (7th Cir. 1993), or “conjure up questions never squarely presented” to the court, Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Discussion Plaintiff files a complaint claiming employment discrimination in which she names two employees of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The only allegations against the EEOC employees are that they conducted “a very weak
2

6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 08/13/10 Entry Number 14 Page 3 of 5
investigation.” The complaint is silent as to what cause of action Plaintiff is attempting to bring against the federal employees. The EEOC employees are not subject to suit under Title VII in this case, and no allegations of discrimination are made that could be construed as a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971)(A plaintiff may obtain damages for injuries caused by a federal agent acting “under color of his authority” in violation of the plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights.). The complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants Delledonne and Mackey, and these defendants should be dismissed as parties to this action.
The complaint also names the South Carolina Employment Security Commission as a defendant in this case. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution divests this court of jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought against the State of South Carolina or its integral parts, such as a state agency or department. The Eleventh Amendment provides:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. U.S. Const. Amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment confirmed the constitutional principle of sovereign immunity, which predates the Amendment. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 728-29(1999). Although the Eleventh Amendment expressly forbids suits in federal court by citizens of other States against a State, the Amendment also bars suits against a State filed by it own citizens. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890). A State may consent to suit in a federal district court, which serves to waive sovereign immunity. See Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (2002). The Defendant South Carolina Employment
3

6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 08/13/10 Entry Number 14 Page 4 of 5

Security Commission has not consented to suit in federal court in this case, so the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff from bringing a civil rights action in this court against Defendant South Carolina Employment Security Commission. The Defendant South Carolina Employment Security Commission should be dismissed as a party to this action.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended that the District Judge dismiss as parties to this case Defendants Delledonne and Mackey, as well as the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. Service of process on the remaining defendants has been ordered.

August 13, 2010 Greenville, South Carolina

s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States Magistrate Judge

The plaintiff’s attention is directed to the notice on the following page.

4

6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 08/13/10 Entry Number 14 Page 5 of 5
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead 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., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Larry W. Propes, Clerk United States District Court 300 E. Washington Street, Room 239 Greenville, South Carolina 29601 Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
5

 
 6:10-cv-01587-JMC Date Filed 12/09/10 Entry Number 33 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

Catherine Amila Brown,

)

)

C.A. No. 6:10cv-01587-JMC-BHH

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

) STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH

)

PREJUDICE

Cynthia Pennington, Denise Forrester,

)

Julia T. Cannon, Pat Mitchell, Mark A. )

Delledonne, Victoria A. Mackey, and

)

South Carolina Employment Security

)

Commission,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Plaintiff, Catherine Amila Brown, by and through the undersigned attorney, stipulates

that no matters of controversy exist between Plaintiff and Defendants, and that Plaintiff’s claims

against Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 17.02

D.S.C. and Rule 41, of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of December, 2010.

WE SO STIPULATE:

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN G. RECKENBEIL

CHILDS & HALLIGAN, P.A.

s/ John G. Reckenbeil John G. Reckenbeil, Fed. I.D. No. 7671 P.O. Box 1633 Spartanburg, SC 29304 john@johnreckenbeillaw.com (864) 582-5472

s/ Thomas K. Barlow Thomas K. Barlow, Esq., Fed. I.D. No. 7483 tbarlow@childs-halligan.net P.O. Box 11367 Columbia, SC 29211-1367 (803) 254-4035

Attorney for Plaintiff

Attorney for Defendants Cynthia Pennington, Denise Forrester, Julia T. Cannon, and Pat Mitchell

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

Catherine Amila Brown,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

Cynthia Pennington, Denise Forrester,

)

Julia T. Cannon, Pat Mitchell,

)

Mark A. Delledonne, and

)

Victoria A. Mackey,

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

C.A. No. 6:10-cv-01587-JMC ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Catherine Amila Brown, filed this action alleging employment

discrimination. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. #14 ], filed on August

13, 2010, recommends that the court dismiss as parties to this case Defendants Mark A. Delledonne,

Victoria A. Mackey, and the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. The Report and

Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards in this matter, and the

court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge

makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or

1

recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff was advised of her right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
# 14, at 5]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this
court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead 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., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 14] and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants Mark A. Delledonne, Victoria A. Mackey, and the South Carolina Employment Security Commission are dismissed as parties to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Greenville, South Carolina December 10, 2010

s/ J. Michelle Childs United States District Judge

2

 
 Case: 6:10-cv-01587-JMC As of: 09/26/2013 11:16 PM EDT 1 of 3

CLOSED,JURY,PROSE
U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Greenville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:10−cv−01587−JMC

Brown v. Pennington et al Assigned to: Honorable J Michelle Childs Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff Catherine Amila Brown

Date Filed: 06/21/2010 Date Terminated: 12/10/2010 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by John G Reckenbeil John G Reckenbeil Law Office PO Box 1633 Spartanburg, SC 29306 864−582−5472 Fax: 864−582−7280 Email: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Cynthia Pennington Mauldin High Cafeteria
Defendant Denise Forrester Mauldin High Cafeteria
Defendant Julia T Cannon Greenville County Schools Administration
Defendant Pat Mitchell Greenville County Schools Administration
Defendant Mark A Delledonne EEOC TERMINATED: 12/10/2010 Defendant

represented by Thomas Kennedy Barlow Childs and Halligan PO Box 11367 Columbia, SC 29211−1367 803−254−4035 Fax: 803−771−4422 Email: tbarlow@childs−halligan.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas Kennedy Barlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas Kennedy Barlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas Kennedy Barlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:10-cv-01587-JMC As of: 09/26/2013 11:16 PM EDT 2 of 3

Victoria A Mackey EEOC Charlotte District Office TERMINATED: 12/10/2010
Defendant
South Carolina Employment Security Commission TERMINATED: 12/10/2010

Date Filed 06/21/2010
06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 08/05/2010 08/05/2010 08/13/2010
08/13/2010
08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/23/2010 08/23/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Julia T Cannon, Mark A Delledonne, Denise Forrester, Victoria A Mackey, Pat Mitchell, Cynthia Pennington, South Carolina Employment Security Commission (Filing fee $350, not paid), filed by Catherine Amila Brown. (Attachments: # 1 EEOC Right to Sue, # 2 Exhibit 1−3 Cupcake Incident, # 3 Exhibit 4 Employee Warning Report, # 4 Exhibit 5 Letter of Termination, # 5 Exhibit 6 Termination Form, # 6 Envelope)(kmca) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Catherine Amila Brown. No proposed order.Motions referred to Bruce Howe Hendricks.(kmca) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
4 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Catherine Amila Brown.(kmca) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
8 PROPER FORM ORDER.Case to be brought into proper form by 7/26/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/30/10. (kmca) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
9 TEXT ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis per 8 Proper Form Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/30/10.(kmca) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
***DOCUMENT MAILED 8 Proper Form Order with summons and 7 USM−285s, 9 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, placed in U.S. Mail to Catherine Amila Brown (kmca) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
11 NOTICE of Change of Address for Greenville Clerk's Office. (kmca) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
***DOCUMENT MAILED 11 Notice of Change of Address, placed in U.S. Mail to Catherine Amila Brown (kmca) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
13 ORDER authorizing service of process by clerk on Defendants Pennington,Forrester, Cannon, and Mitchell only. Directing plaintiff to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/13/10. (kmca) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the District Judge dismiss as parties to this case Defendants Delledonne and Mackey, as well as the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. Service of process on the remaining defendants has been ordered. Objections to RRdue by 8/30/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/13/10. (kmca) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
***DOCUMENT MAILED 13 Order Service, 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, placed in U.S. Mail to Catherine Amila Brown (kmca) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
15 Summons Issued as to Julia T Cannon, Denise Forrester, Pat Mitchell, Cynthia Pennington. (kmca) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
16 Case Reassigned to Judge Honorable J Michelle Childs. Judge Honorable R Bryan Harwell no longer assigned to the case. (jpet, ) (Entered: 08/23/2010)
17 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 16 Case Reassigned placed in U.S. Mail to Catherine Amila Brown (jpet, ) (Entered: 08/23/2010)

Case: 6:10-cv-01587-JMC As of: 09/26/2013 11:16 PM EDT 3 of 3

09/10/2010 09/10/2010 09/14/2010
09/14/2010 09/14/2010 09/16/2010 09/27/2010 09/29/2010 10/04/2010 10/04/2010 10/13/2010 10/13/2010 10/18/2010 12/09/2010 12/09/2010
12/10/2010

19 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Julia T Cannon, Denise Forrester, Pat Mitchell, Cynthia Pennington. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Mailing)(Barlow, Thomas) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
20 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Julia T Cannon, Denise Forrester, Pat Mitchell, Cynthia Pennington. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Mailing)(Barlow, Thomas) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
22 SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 10/4/2010, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 10/18/2010, Rule 26 Report due by 10/18/2010, Amended Pleadings due by 11/29/2010, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 12/29/2010, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 1/28/2011, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 1/28/2011, Discovery due by 2/28/2011, Motions due by 3/14/2011, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 5/6/2011, Motion in Limine due by 5/24/2011, Pretrial Briefs due by 5/31/2011, Jury Selection Deadline 6/7/2011. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/14/10. (kmca) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
23 MEDIATION ORDER. Mediation Due by 3/7/2011. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/14/10. (kmca) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
***DOCUMENT MAILED 22 Scheduling Order with Rule 26(f) Report and Notice of Availability of US Magistrate Judge, 23 Mediation Order, placed in U.S. Mail to Catherine Amila Brown (kmca) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed: Denise Forrester served on 8/31/2010; Pat Mitchell served on 8/31/2010; Cynthia Pennington served on 8/31/2010. (Note: answer filed 9/10/10) (kmca) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
25 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Catherine Amila Brown. Julia T Cannon served on 9/20/2010. (kric, ) Modified on 9/27/2010: to remove answer date − already answered (kmca). (Entered: 09/27/2010)
26 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Catherine Amila Brown. Response to Motion due by 10/18/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)No proposed order.Motions referred to Bruce Howe Hendricks.(kmca) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
27 ORDER denying plaintiff's 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/4/10.(kmca) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
28 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 27 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel and pro se guide, placed in U.S. Mail to Catherine Amila Brown (kmca) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
29 Rule 26(f) Report by Julia T Cannon, Denise Forrester, Pat Mitchell, Cynthia Pennington. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Barlow, Thomas) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
30 Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Julia T Cannon, Denise Forrester, Pat Mitchell, Cynthia Pennington. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Barlow, Thomas) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
31 Rule 26(f) Report by Catherine Amila Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Initial Disclosures, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Envelope)(kmca) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by John G Reckenbeil on behalf of Catherine Amila Brown (Reckenbeil, John) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
33 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Julia T Cannon, Denise Forrester, Pat Mitchell, Cynthia Pennington, Catherine Amila Brown. (Barlow, Thomas) Modified on 12/10/2010: to add filer listed on document (kmca). (Entered: 12/09/2010)
34 ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and incorporating it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants Mark A. Delledonne, Victoria A. Mackey, and the South Carolina Employment Security Commission are dismissed as parties to this case. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/10/10. (kmca) (Entered: 12/10/2010)