Hammonds v. Bo's Food Store

Filing 8

ORDER adopting 5 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION - Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED in part, and ALLOWED in part, in accordance with this order. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 08/12/2013. (Baker, C.)

Hammonds v. Bo's Food Store

Doc. 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 7:13-CV-66-FL

ANTHONY DWAYNE HAMMONDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BO’S FOOD STORE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of
Magistrate Judge William A. Webb (DE 4), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), in which he recommends that the court dismiss plaintiff’s claims of employment
discrimination based on religion and gender as frivolous, but allow plaintiff’s claim for employment
discrimination based on race. Plaintiff timely filed objection to the M&R. In this posture, the issues
raised are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the recommendation of the
magistrate judge.
DISCUSSION
The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s M&R to which
specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court does not perform a de novo review
where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a
specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687
F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for
“clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life

Dockets.Justia.com

& Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th
Cir.1983). Upon careful review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In this case, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint1 in part for the
following reasons. First, the magistrate judge determined that plaintiff’s claim regarding disparate
treatment based on religion lacked any allegation of adverse employment action, such as a request
for religious accommodation that was refused. Second, the M&R concluded that plaintiff’s claim
of employment discrimination based on sex lacked both an adverse employment action and any
similarly situated female employee receiving more favorable treatment. Finally, the magistrate
judge determined that plaintiff’s allegations of employment discrimination based on race does
withstand frivolity review.
Plaintiff’s objection gives more detail as to his workplace environment and interaction with
his coworkers, but it does not remedy the deficiencies noted in the M&R. Upon de novo review, the
court finds that such objection provides no basis to disturb the thoughtful analysis contained in the
M&R. The court, therefore, adopts the magistrate judge’s analysis as its own.
CONCLUSION
Upon de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s M&R to which a specific
objection has been filed, and upon considered reviewed of those portions of the M&R to which no
such objection has been made, the court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations of the

1

Plaintiff’s complaint refers to the combination of plaintiff’s original complaint filed
January 28, 2013, and supplemental allegations filed February 25, 2013, in response to the
court’s order to particularize.
2

magistrate judge in full (DE 5). Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED in part, and ALLOWED in
part, in accordance with this order.
SO ORDERED this the 12th day of August, 2013.

_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

3