Adams v. Exel, Inc.
ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, for 35 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on February 24, 2017. (kbos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Cassandra C. Adams,
Case No. 0:15-4356-TLW
The Plaintiff, Cassandra C. Adams (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against her employer,
Defendant Excel, Inc. (“Defendant”), alleging claims of age discrimination in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. (“ADEA”). Defendant filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment on August 1, 2016. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition,
ECF Nos. 25, 27, to which Defendant replied on August 22, 2016, ECF No. 26.
This matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed on January 13, 2016 by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom
this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.).
ECF No. 35. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment and dismiss this case. Id. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the
Report on January 27, 2016. ECF No. 36. The matter is now ripe for disposition.
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
This Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections thereto in
accordance with the standard set forth in Wallace, and concludes that the Magistrate Judge
accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. In response to Plaintiff’s objections, this
Court concludes the Magistrate Judge did not weigh evidence. The Report simply outlines and
discusses the evidence of record in analyzing the issues raised. The Magistrate Judge notes she
discusses only “facts [that] are either undisputed or are viewed in the light most favorable to
[Plaintiff] Adams.” ECF No. 35. As the Report properly concludes, Plaintiff has not met its burden
to demonstrate that the Defendant’s valid, non-discriminatory reasons for promoting other
employees are pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 35, is ACCEPTED and Plaintiff’s
objections thereto, ECF No. 36, are OVERRULED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate
Judge, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, ECF No. 23, and this case is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
February 24, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?