United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff William Cox's
objections to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon
Baker's report and recommendation (“R &
R”) (ECF Nos. 23 & 19). In her R & R, the
Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant Nucor
Corporation's motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated
herein, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections,
adopts the R & R, and grants Defendant's motion to
employment discrimination action arises out of
Plaintiff's claim that Defendant failed to accommodate
his alleged disability, as well as Plaintiff's claim that
Defendant created a hostile work environment.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The R & R has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). Parties may make written objections to the R & R
within fourteen days after being served with a copy of it. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court must conduct a de novo
review of any portion of the R & R to which a specific
objection is made, and it may accept, reject, or modify the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in whole
or in part. Id. Additionally, the Court may receive
more evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. Id. A party's failure to
object is taken as the party's agreement with the
Magistrate Judge's conclusions. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Absent a timely, specific
objection-or as to those portions of the R & R to which
no specific objection is made-this Court “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
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's
bulk of Plaintiff's “objections” to the R
& R are devoted to a recitation of the standards for a
pleading and for a motion to dismiss, as well as a
generalized discussion of the ADA and its requirements. Those
objections do not address the Magistrate Judge's R &
R and are neither specific nor particularized to that R &
R. Therefore, they are overruled.
first true objection relates to the Magistrate Judge's
analysis of his failure to accommodate claim. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's
failure to accommodate claim because he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge's
recommendation is based on Plaintiff's failure to include
that claim in the charge he filed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. See Sydnor v. Fairfax Cty.,
681 F.3d 591, 593 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting that the Americans
with Disabilities Act requires a plaintiff to exhaust his
administrative remedies for a claim by filing a charge with
the EEOC before bringing suit in federal court).
argues that the charge he filed with the EEOC is not required
to set forth all of his claims. Not so. As noted by the
Magistrate Judge, the “‘scope of the
plaintiff's right to file a federal lawsuit is determined
by the charge's contents.'” Id.
(quoting Jones v. Calvert Grp., 551 F.3d 297, 300
(4th Cir. 2009)). “‘[A] plaintiff fails to
exhaust his administrative remedies where . . . his
administrative charges reference different . . .
discriminatory conduct than the central factual allegations
in his formal suit.'” Id. (quoting
Chacko v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505, 406 (4th
Cir. 2005)). Moreover, courts “are not at liberty to
read into administrative charges allegations they do not
contain.” Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus.,
711 F.3d 401, 408 (4th Cir. 2013). Thus, Plaintiff's
first objection is overruled.
Plaintiff claims that his charge does in fact raise his
failure to accommodate claim. The Court disagrees.
Plaintiff's EEOC charge cannot be read to be raising a
failure to accommodate claim. In fact, the charge states that
Plaintiff received a reasonable
accommodation. Accordingly, that objection is also overruled.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation that the Court also dismiss his hostile work
environment claim. As to this claim, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to
state a claim. Plaintiff argues that his complaint contains
sufficient facts to overcome Defendant's motion to
dismiss. Specifically, Plaintiff states that Defendant
required him to work with his harassers on a daily basis,
that Defendant's employees were aware of Plaintiff's
disability and harassed him in order to exacerbate his
condition, and that Defendant refused to transfer Plaintiff
in an effort to force Plaintiff to quit.
To state a hostile work environment claim under the ADA,
Plaintiff must show that:
(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he
was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was
based on his disability; (4) the harassment was sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter a term, condition, or privilege
of employment; and (5) some factual ...