United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jeffrey Jordan (Jordan) filed this employment action against
his employer, Defendant South Carolina Department of
Transportation (DOT), complaining of retaliation. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting DOT's motion for summary judgment be granted.
The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report to which specific objection is
made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 14, 2018.
Jordan filed his objections on January 11, 2019, and DOT
filed its reply on February 1, 2019. The Court has reviewed
the objections, but holds them to be without merit. It will
therefore enter judgment accordingly.
Jordan's second job discrimination suit against DOT. The
parties settled the first action with a stipulation of
dismissal with prejudice as to all claims that predated April
21, 2014, the date of the stipulation. Thus, this lawsuit
covers Jordan's claims against DOT from April 21, 2014,
until January 13, 2017, when he filed his amended complaint
in this lawsuit.
Jordan complains DOT retaliated against him because he filed
his first action. Jordan specifically alleges the following:
a. [His] time and attendance and performance of work
typically within his scope of duties was questioned in an
accusatory manner without justification;
b. [He] was subjected to retaliatory statements by Mark
Dezurik (Dezurik) and Dusty Turner (Turner), both of whom
were in his chain of command and had been called as witnesses
in his prior case;
c. Upon information and belief, [DOT's] management
advised Jeremy Knight, then-Interim Resident Maintenance
Engineer [(RME)] and [Jordan's] supervisor, to attempt to
get rid of [him];
d. Management failed to investigate when another employee
reported that [Jordan] was being subjected to retaliation;
e. [Jordan] received an unfavorable performance rating; [and]
f. [Jordan] was denied selection or even an interview on
November 18, 2014, for [an RME] position.
Complaint ¶ 11. These retaliation claims fall into two
broad categories: Subsections “a.” through
“e.” enumerate DOT's alleged retaliation in
its purported mistreatment of Jordan (mistreatment claims);
and Subsection “f.” concerns DOT's asserted
retaliation in failing to interview or select Jordan for the
RME position in Saluda County for which he applied
offers three objections to the Report. First, he
“objects to the [M]agistrate [J]udge's conclusion
that no reasonable jury could find a genuine dispute of
material fact exists as to whether or not [DOT's] reasons
for excluding [Jordan] ...