Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Haynes Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

June 27, 2019

Jessica Smith, Plaintiff,
v.
Haynes Incorporated, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Honorable Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Jessica Smith's (“Plaintiff” or “Smith”) complaint against Defendant Haynes Incorporated (“Defendant” or “Haynes”), alleging the following causes of action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”): (1) discrimination; (2) hostile work environment; and (3) retaliation. On October 8, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff filed a response in opposition.

         On January 18, 2019, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g), D.S.C., United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, and Defendant filed a reply. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

         ANALYSIS

         As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff's objections lack specificity and fail to alert the Court to specific errors in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

         In fact, as Defendant points out, Plaintiff's objections are, in large part, simply portions of her response in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, which have been cut and pasted and renamed “objections.”[1] (Cf. ECF Nos. 26 and 38.) Specifically, the procedural history portion of Plaintiff's objections is taken almost verbatim from the procedural history portion of her response in opposition. More importantly, the majority of her “objections” are simply a regurgitation of the facts she set forth in her response in opposition. (Cf. ECF Nos. 26 at 3-17 and 38 at 6-19.)

         Ultimately, the only arguably specific objection Plaintiff makes is her assertion that the Magistrate Judge's Report fails to consider the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, but after a review of the record the Court finds this objection wholly without merit. Stated simply, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to point to any facts overlooked by the Magistrate Judge that create a genuine issue of material fact as to any of her claims.

         Instead, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's thorough analysis and finds for the reasons explained by the Magistrate Judge that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim; her wrongful discharge and disability discrimination claims; her retaliation claim; and her hostile work environment claim.

         In conclusion, therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff's objection that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff without merit, as Plaintiff fails to point to a single fact that creates a genuine issue of material fact as to her claims. In addition, as previously noted, the Court finds the remainder of Plaintiff's objections, which amount to nothing more than a repackaging of her prior arguments in response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, wholly without merit. Ultimately, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the facts and applied the correct principles of law, and the Court therefore adopts in full the Magistrate Judge's Report.

         CONCLUSION

         Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 35) is adopted and specifically incorporated herein; Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 38) are overruled; and Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20) is granted.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.