United States District Court, D. South Carolina
J . GOSSET, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Tara LeAnn Broxton, a self-represented litigant, filed this
action pursuant the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et
seq.; alleging a violation of her constitutional rights.
Following service of the Complaint, Defendant Blue Ridge in
the Fields has not made an appearance in this matter.
(See ECF No. 18.) Accordingly, the Clerk of Court
entered default against Defendant Blue Ridge in the Fields,
the sole defendant in this case, on November 9, 2018. Broxton
filed a motion for default judgment on November 13, 2018.
November 16, 2018, the court issued an order directing
Broxton to supplement her motion for default judgment in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2).
(ECF No. 23.) Specifically, the court instructed Broxton
that, if the matter is ripe for resolution and unliquidated
damage claims remain, Broxton should file a separate motion
seeking resolution on written submissions under a summary
judgment standard or through an evidentiary hearing
addressing (1) the damages sought (categories and amounts);
(2) the standards by which the damages should be measured;
(3) whether the matter may be resolved on the written
submissions (and, if so, attaching supporting evidence); (4)
if a hearing may be necessary, the witnesses and evidence
which will be presented and estimated hearing time; and (5)
whether a jury demand has been made (in which event a jury
trial as to unliquidated damages may be required). Although
Broxton submitted some evidence in response to this order,
she has failed to fully comply with the court's
Broxton is directed to fully comply with the court's
previous order, as outlined above. Any evidence-such as
affidavits, declarations, documents, or other materials-in
support of written submissions provided by Broxton should
comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1), (4),
& 56(e) (describing types of evidence necessary to
support an assertion or fact). All affidavits, declarations,
or other evidence submitted to the court must be made in good
faith, and the facts sworn to in affidavits or affirmed in
declarations must be true and submitted under penalties of
perjury or subornation of perjury. 18 U.S.C. §§
1621 and 1622.
applicable law, although the court must accept Broxton's
well-pleaded factual allegations as true, the court must
determine whether the unchallenged factual allegations
constitute a legitimate cause of action and support the
relief sought in the action. Ryan v. Homecomings Fin.
Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780-81 (4th Cir. 2001); see
also 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller &
Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §
2688 at 63 (3d ed. 1998) (“Even after default, however,
it remains for the court to consider whether the unchallenged
facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party
in default does not admit mere conclusions of law.”).
To establish a prima facie case against her employer
for failure to accommodate under the ADA, she must show
“(1) that [s]he was an individual who had a disability
within the meaning of the statute; (2) that the [employer]
had notice of [her] disability; (3) that with reasonable
accommodation [s]he could perform the essential functions of
the position . . .; and (4) that the [employer] refused to
make such accommodations.” Rhoads v. F.D.I.C.,
257 F.3d 373, 387 n.11 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Mitchell
v. Washingtonville Ctr. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 1, 6 (2d
Cir. 1999)); see also Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp.,
717 F.3d 337, 345 (4th Cir. 2013). With regard to a claim for
discriminatory discharge based upon a disability, some courts
have stated that to establish a prima facie case, a
plaintiff must show: (1) that she was a disabled individual
within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that she was discharged;
(3) that she was fulfilling her employer's legitimate
expectations at the time of discharge; and (4) that the
circumstances of her discharge raise a reasonable inference
of unlawful discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. §
12112(a); Reynolds v. Am. Nat'l Red Cross, 701
F.3d 143, 150 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Rohan v. Networks
Presentations LLC, 375 F.3d 266, 273 n.9 (4th Cir.
2004)); Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 252 F.3d
696 (4th Cir. 2001). Additionally, “[a] retaliatory
discharge claim under the ADA has three prima facie
elements: [the plaintiff] must show (1) that [s]he engaged in
protected activity; (2) that [her] employer took an adverse
action against [her]; and (3) that a causal connection
existed between the adverse activity and the protected
action.” Haulbrook, 252 F.3d at 706.
“Once the court determines that a judgment by default
should be entered, it will determine the amount and character
of the recovery that should be awarded.” 10A Wright,
Miller & Kane, supra, § 2688 at 63.
on the foregoing, it is
that Broxton shall file a motion as directed above within
twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order. Broxton is
further advised that if she fails to comply, this
action may be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for
failure to prosecute. See Davis v.
Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P.