United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
Valentine, (“Plaintiff”), brings this action
against Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc.
(“Defendant”). This case arises out of
Plaintiff's termination from his job on April 19, 2016.
Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §
41-1-80 for retaliation for filing a workers'
compensation claim and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for race
discrimination. On November 12, 2018, Defendant filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 26). On December 11,
2018, Plaintiff, through counsel, responded. (ECF No. 32). On
December 18, 2018, Defendant replied to Plaintiff's
response. (ECF No. 34). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (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 (1) grant summary judgment as
to Plaintiff's race discrimination claim because
Plaintiff conceded that discovery did not produce sufficient
evidence, and (2) that summary judgment should also be
granted as to Plaintiff's worker's compensation
retaliation claim. 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
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).
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on January 25, 2019. (ECF No. 35).
Plaintiff, through counsel, filed objections to the Report
(“Objections”) on February 4, 2019. (ECF No. 37).
On February 8, 2019, Defendant filed a Reply to
Plaintiff's Objections. (ECF No. 39). Thus, this matter
is ripe for review.
judgment should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery
and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show
“that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The movant has the burden of
proving that summary judgment is appropriate. Once the movant
makes the showing, however, the opposing party must respond
to the motion with “specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting
genuine issue of any material fact exists, summary judgment
is appropriate. See Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d
1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). In deciding a motion for summary
judgment, the facts and inferences to be drawn from the
evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Id. However, “the mere
existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties
will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for
summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine
issue of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at
the moving party has met [its] burden, the nonmoving party
must come forward with some evidence beyond the mere
allegations contained in the pleadings to show that there is
a genuine issue for trial.” Baber v. Hospital Corp.
of Am., 977 F.2d 872, 874-75 (4th Cir. 1992). The
nonmoving party may not rely on beliefs, conjecture,
speculation, or conclusory allegations to defeat a motion for
summary judgment. See Id. Rather, the nonmoving
party is required to submit evidence of specific facts by way
of affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, or admissions to
demonstrate the existence of a genuine and material factual
issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986).
detailed consideration of the Report, the parties'
briefs, and the Objections, the Court modifies the Report
(ECF No. 35) in part as set forth below. Additionally, the
Court adopts those portions of the Report (ECF No. 35) which
are not inconsistent with this Order.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to
Plaintiff's claim for race discrimination under Title VII
and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Magistrate Judge correctly opines that Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment should be granted as to Plaintiff's
claim for race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 because Plaintiff concedes that “discovery
did not produce sufficient evidence that the decision to
terminate Plaintiff was because of his race.” (ECF No.
32 p. 1). Additionally, Plaintiff does not object to this
portion of the Report, and in the absence of ...