United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Evans (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed
this suit against Land Star Transportation Logistic, Inc.
(“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant
discriminated against him based on his race, color,
disability, and age when Defendant decided not to hire him as
an independent contractor. 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.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this Court should dismiss the Complaint in this
case with prejudice. (ECF No. 45). The Report sets forth, in
detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards
without a recitation.
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on May 12, 2016. Plaintiff filed a
response to the report on May 27, 2016, (ECF No. 48) and
Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections on
June 9, 2016 (ECF No. 50). Thus, this matter is ripe for the
court is charged with making a de novo determination
of those portions of the Report to which specific objections
are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, 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 Report of the
Magistrate, 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).
Plaintiff attempts to make four objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Although vague, all four statements can be
construed as definite enough to constitute objections.
However, each objection is without merit.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to attempt to resolve
discovery disputes prior to filing motions related to
discovery. Although the record does indicate that Defendant
made a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes before
court intervention, no duty was necessary. Local Civ. Rule
7.02 (D.S.C.) makes an exception to the general rule to
consult when there is a motion to dismiss and where the
opposing party is not represented by counsel. Therefore
Plaintiff’s first objection is inapplicable to this
second objection asserts that Defendant took advantage of
Plaintiff s pro se status in filing its Motion to Dismiss.
Apart from this bare assertion, Plaintiff has offered no
evidence or asserted any authority for this conclusion.
Additionally, the record shows no indication of bad faith or
any unethical behavior on behalf of Defendants. Therefore,
Plaintiffs second objection is without merit.
third objection asserts that the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation failed to consider Plaintiffs
previous motion to compel brought against Defendant. However,
the Court properly denied this prior motion on June 11, 2016,
after receiving Defendant’s response in opposition to
Plaintiff s motion. (ECF No. 26). Thus, Plaintiffs earlier
motion to compel has been decided and has no bearing on
Defendant’s current dispositive motion.
Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge erred in deciding
the Motion to Dismiss without a hearing. Local Civ. Rule 7.08
(D.S.C.) states that “[h]earings on motions may be
ordered by the court in its discretion, ” and otherwise
“motions may be determined without a hearing.”
Therefore, Plaintiff was not entitled to a hearing, and the
Magistrate Judge correctly issued its Report and
Recommendation based on the parties’ briefs and
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, as well as the Report, this court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and ...